. —- $ ys Ce iy “ *, * @ ef 
Me - a = e seated es z “a oe, al ae Tite Gamer US pai, 5 Selig Os 
peice Bate eal J is SL oee eae ales nea S eS Po a oS Me hagas fF ow ee 
“sal 1 ‘ sae Sh , “ = spas pe ig 


¥ 


Sie 


Se : 


oe 
“eos fs 
sre bet age : 


Ae 


na 
~ Se 


Per’, 


erate 


ae 


Aor oad 
Sew <n 
ike 


Wea aren! 
eae 


=e Rare : Pin sO MERE, naire he et eee Mauer ee Sn, : ce eee 
en = : Ihe 


ae! 


Ie. 
: Pe ricer! 
wees: feast 





ANS TEEN EEE TATE ERA POTS REESE LR A 
he al Reel 
REL NESE 








| oy gt the Theologica Sen 
7 ae 


PRINCETON, N. J. a 


QH 366 .M33 1899 

MacDill, David, 1826-1903. 

| Common sense and logic 
applied to Darwinism and | 





























* 


— 











Common Sense and Logic 


APPLIED TO 


DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 








BY 
RevesbeaViacliled) heehee): 
PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS IN 


XENIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 


AND AUTHOR OF “‘THE BIBLE A MIRACLE,” ‘“‘STHE MOSAIC AUTHOR: 
SHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH,’’ AND OTHER WORKS. 


1899. 
MARSHALL & BEVERIDGE, PRINTERS, 
XENIA, OHIO. 





Preface. 


In the following treatise, we employ, in some cases, 
arguments and considerations that have been employed 
before, for the reason that we have aimed at fulness of 
discussion. 

Using freely thoughts not original with ourselves, we 
have endeavored to make, in the proper places, due ac- 
knowledgement of our indebtedness to others; but doubt- 
less we have failed in some cases to do so. 

Some facts and considerations are introduced more 
than once, because of their different aspects and because 


of their bearing on different parts of the general subject. 


Contents. 


Chap. I. Introductory. 


Sec. 1. What is Evolution? 
Sec. 2. What is Darwinism ? 
Sec. 3. The Origin of Man. 


Sec. 4. Is Darwinism consistent with Theism and 


the Biblical account of Creation ? 


Chap. II. Darwinism not yet proved. 


«ec 


ce 


Ill. The Invariability of Species. 


IV. The Fertility of crossed varieties, and Infertility 
of crossed Species. 


V. The Palaeontological argument. 

VI. The Failure of Darwinism as an explanatory 
hypothesis. 

VII. The Homological argument. 

VIII. The Impossibilities of Darwinism. 

IX. Darwinian arguments considered: 

X. Darwinism and Teleology. 

XI. The Biblical Cosmogony. 

SLL 4rinal; 


Sec. 1. What, if Darwinism should prove to be 
tues 


Sec. 2. What, if the theory of Special Creations is 
true? 


OER bel Reais 





INTRODUCTORY. 


SECTION I.—WHAT IS EVOLUTION ? 


SPENCER defines as follows: “Avolution ts an integra- 
tion of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during 
which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homo- 
geneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during 
which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transforma- 
tion.” 1 

It was this famous definition which led the Contem- 
porary Reviewer to remark that “the universe may well 
have heaved a sigh of relief when, through the cerebra- 
tion of an eminent thinker, it had been delivered of this 
account of itself.” . 

One of the objections to this definition is that it re- 
presents evolution as a change a/ways from the indefinite, 
incoherent and homogeneous to the definite, coherent and: 
heterogeneous; or, from the simple to the complex. It 
ignores the backward movement in evolution, though the 
author has recognized it outside of his famous definition. 2 
The fact of degradation in evolution is asserted clearly and 
fully by other writers. Darwin says: 

“Members of a high group might even become, and 
this apparently has often occurred, fitted for simpler con- 
ditions of life; and in this case natural selection would tend 
to simplify or degrade the organization; for complicate 
mechanism for simple actions would be useless or even 
disadvantageous.” 3 Prof. Romanes says: 

“The facts of deterioration or degeneration may be 
due either toa passive cessation of selection or to an 

(1) First Principles, p. 396. , 

(2) Biology Vol. 1, p- 322. 

(3) Variation under Domestication, Vol. 1, p. 8. 


6 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


active reversal of it.” ! 

Heckel and Le Conte make similar declarations. 

According to Darwinism, the whale and the porpoise 
are examples of degradation, being descended from terres- 
trial quadrupeds. Le Conte speaks of whales “coming 
from land animals by retrograde changes.” 2 The serpents 
that are thought to have rudiments of legs must be re- 
garded as examples of the degradation of legged animals 

into reptiles. 

/ The definition above quoted is then erroneous, since it 
ignores the transmutation of the more complex into the 
more simple, and the higher into the lower. It is further 
erroneous in this respect that it applies only to matter. 
Evolution is not limited to the material and organic world. 
It includes in its domain mind, politics, literature, morals 
and even religion. Spencer himself, in his own book, en- 
titled ‘“///ustrations of Universal Progress,” says: 

“Whether it bein the development of the earth, in the 
development of life upon its surface, in the development of 
society, of government, of manufactures, of commerce, of 
language, literature, science, art, this same evolution of the 
simple into the complex, through successive differentia- 
tions, holds throughout.” ? But government, language, 
literature, science and art are not material things. Hence 
to define evolution as a process, involving merely matter 
‘and motion, is a great mistake. 

A more accurate and sensible definition, though not 
so much lauded nor so frequently quoted, may be found, 
stowed away in the appendix to one of Spencer's volumes, 
as follows: 

“The affirmation of universal evolution is in itself the 
negative of an absolute commencement of anything. 
Construed in terms of evolution, every kind of being is 
conceived as a product of modifications wrought by insen- 
sible gradations on a pre-existing kind of being: and this 
holds as fully of the supposed commencement of organic 
life as of all subsequent developments of organic life.’ 4 

According to this statement, it is to be observed, as 
follows: 

I. Evolution is universal, including everything in- 
organic and organic, every development of physical, intel- 


(1) Darwin and hise Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 270, 
(2) Geology, p. 

(3) Lllustrations oe Universal Progress, p. 3. 
(4) Biology, Vol. 1, p. 482, 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 7 


lectual, social, moral and religious life. Even Darwin’s 
four or five primordial forms, and his one primordial form, 
must be delivered over to evolution. If there is one thing 
in all the universe not subject to the law of evolution, it is 
“the inscrutable Power” which figures so largely in the 
writings of Spencer. 

2. According to this definition, everything (except 
“the inscrutable Power) and every development, material, 
mental, social, theological and political, was potentially 
existent in some antecedent, and has been derived from it. 
This seems to involve an infinite series and the negation 
of an absolute commencement. Each antecedent is sup- 
posed to be derived from a preceding antecedent, and this 
from another; thus back and back ad infinitum. 

3. As there has been no absolute commencement, 
there must have been some time and somewhere an un- 
thinkable process between zothing and something. How 
did the lowest existence get started? In order to bridge 
the chasm between something and nothing, Spencer seems 
to be disposed to fall back on the dogma of spontaneous 
generation.! But of this we shall speak hereafter. 

Such is evolution as set forth by its most famous - eX- 
ponent and defender. ; 


SECTION 2.—WHAT IS DARWINISM ? 


Darwinism is the doctrine of evolution applied to 
plants and animals. Darwin took into view only the or- 
ganic world. His aim was to account for the origin of the - 
various classes of organisms. His hypothesis is that at 
first only one primordial form, or at most only four or five 
primordial forms, were created; 2 and that from these, all 
existing species of plants and animals, by slight changes, 
continued from generation to generation, and through 
long periods of time, have been derived. The several 
points of Darwinisiz may be stated as follows: 

/ i. The original existence of matter and of four or 
' five primordial forms, or at least of one. Darwin held 
(at least at the time he wrote the book that has made him 
famous) that these primordial forms, or the one primordial 
form, originated by creation. His express declaration is 
that ‘the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable ex- 
tinct and living descendants, was created.” ? The idea of 

(1) Brology, Vol. 1, pp. 486-492. 

(2) Origin of Species, p. 423. (3) Origin of Species, p. 422, 


8 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


creation is emphasized by the tautology of the expression, 
“the first creature was created.” . 

2. From these four or five primordial forms, or from 
this oné primordial form, have descended the multitudin- 
ous genera and species of plants and animals that have 
since appeared upon the earth, both dead and living. 

3. The main factor in the evolution of genera and 
species is zatural selection. 

4. Natural selection involves several facts (real or sup- 
posed) as follows: 

(1.) Offspring are much like their parents—heredity, 
inheritance. 

(2.) Offspring differ somewhat from their parents—dif- 
ferentiation. 

(3.) There is a fierce struggle among the various plants 
and animals for existence. This struggle for existence re- 
sults from their rapid increase. That increase being in 
many cases in a geometric ratio, the world would soon be 
overstocked if multitudes of plants and animals were not 
destroyed. Darwinism includes the Malthusian doctrine. 

(4.) In the struggle for existence, the weaker individu- 
als, those least adapted to cope with the difficulties of 
their environment, perish; the stronger individuals, those 
best adapted to their environment, survive. Or, at least, 
the stronger individuals live longer and have a more num- 
erous posterity, imparting their peculiarities to them. 

(5.) Adaptation to environment depends on heredity and 
variation. The offspring, that by heredity and variation, 
possess characteristics most suitable to their surroundings, 
are the healthiest and longest-lived. These therefore, with 
such of their offspring as are most like themselves, pre- 
dominate in their species and give it character. Thus by 
heredity and variation, the struggle for existence and the 
survival of the fittest, the species change slightly from 
generation to generation, and thus become in the enda 
new species. 

5. Another factor in the transmutation of species, ac- 
cording to Darwinism, is sexual selection. 

Among some species of animals the pairing of the 
sexes is determined by the size, strength, beauty or other 
attractiveness of the males. Thus certain qualities of 
form, structure, or color are perpetuated and intensified, 
and in time differentiate and characterize the species. 

6. Use and azsuse constitute another factor in transmu- 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 9 


tation. Organs are developed and strengthened by use, 
but are atrophied and destroyed by disuse. When species 
migrate, or their environment changes in some other way, 
organs in some cases become useless, atrophy and dis- 
appear. In this way transmutation and the formation of 
new species are favored or hindered. 

Darwinism, then, is the hypothesis that, by means of 
slight modifications transmitted and accumulating from 
generation to generation through immense periods of time, 
all existing species of plants and animals, including man, 
have descended from a few original forms, or from one, 
that lived and perished long, long ago. 


SECTION 3—THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 


If Darwinism be applied to man, the conclusion seems 
to be quite natural, if not unavoidable, that he is descended 
from some branch of the monkey species. For although 
Sir John Lubbock holds that the ant race rank intellectu- 
ally next to man, yet-it is generally admitted that the apes, 
in their corporeal structure and psychical qualities taken 
together, differ from men less than do any of the other 
lower animals. If then man has passed from the lowest 
condition of animal existence, through various intermedi- 
ate forms—fish, reptiles, four-footed beasts—on up to his 
present form and intellectual position, it seems naturally 
and logically to follow that he has descended from the 
animals that resemble him most in physical structure and 
intellectual capacity. If we are to count among our ances- 
tors beings much lower than quadrupeds and reptiles— 
lower even than tadpoles, fish-worms and tumble-bugs, 
why should we hesitate to acknowledge ourselves descend- 
ants of the monkeys? 

As a matter of fact, Darwin maintained that men are 
descended from the catarhines (perpendicular-nosed mon- 
keys). His views are expressed as follows: 

“There can hardly be a doubt that man is an offshoot 
from the Old World Simian stem; and, under a genealogi- 
cal point of view, he must be classed with the catarhine 
division.”—“And as man roma genealogical point of view 
belongs to the catarhine or Old World stock, we must con- 
clude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, 
that our early progenitors would have been properly thus 
designated.”—‘“The Simiadze branched off into two great 


IO COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from 
the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory 
of the universe, proceeded.” ! 

In view of man’s descent as thus set forth, Darwin con- 
cludes that the human race began their existence in Africa, 
the original home of the catarhines. He suggests that 
man originated in a hot country, where he lost the hairy 
covering that he inherited from his quadrumanous ances- 
tors. Even the absence of a tail and callosities in men is 
urged by him as a proof of their Simian descent, on the 
ground that this peculiarity is common to them and the 
anthropomorphous apes. He, however, maintains that the 
absence of a tail in man is only apparent. He gravely 
argues that the os coccyx (termination of the backbone) is 
a tail, reduced in size by disuse and friction, and thus made 
rudimentary. 

“A tail, though not externally visible, is really pre- 
sent in man and the anthropomorphous apes, and ‘is con- 
structed on precisely the same pattern in both.” 2 

In accounting for the diminutive size of the human 
tail, Darwin suggests that our monkey progenitors rubbed 
and chafed their tails by sitting on them, and thus wore 
them off, so as finally to have scarcely any tails at all. It 
is thus that he accounts not for the absence, but the in- 
visibility of the tailin men and the anthropomorphous 
apes. % : 

The most of the thorough-going evolutionists entirely 
agree with Darwin in regard to the Simian descent of man. 
Prof. Haeckel, of Germany, among other things, says: 

“The certain proof of our derivation from tailed cata- 
rhini is to be found in the comparative anatomy and the 
ontogeny of apes and man.’’—‘‘We must necessarily come 
to the conclusion that the human race isa small branch of 
the group of catarhini, and has developed out of long since 
extinct apes ofthis group in the Old World.” 4 

Haeckel, like Darwin, declares man to be a tailed ani- 
mal, as follows: 

“The rudimentary little tail of man is an irrefutable 
proof of the fact that he is descended from tailed an- 
cestors.” 5 

Huxley utters no word of dissent from the views of 


(1) The Descent of Man, pp. 153, 155, 165. 

(2) Descent of Man, p. 58. 

(3) Descent of Man, pp. 58-60. 

(4) Hist of Creation, Vol. 2, pp 274, 292. (5) p. 289. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. Ti 


Darwin and Heckel in regard to the descent of man. He 
hails with exultation “the admission that there is nothing 
in man’s physical structure tointerfere with his having 
been evolved from an ape.” ' Monkeys of all kinds, apes, 
chimpanzees, gorillas, gibbons, orang-outangs, catarhines 
and platyrhines figure in his work entitled “Man's Place 
im Nature,’ from beginning to end. He concludes as fol- 
lows: 

“Where then must we look for primeval man? Was 
the oldest homo sapiens pliocene or miocene, or yet more 
ancient? Instill older strata do the fossilized bones of an 
ape more anthropoid, or a man more pithecoid, than any 
yet known, await the researches of some unborn palceon- 
tologist? ‘Time will show.” 2 

It is evident that the only doubt in Huxley’s mind in 
regard to man’s descent was as to what kind of ape “the 
missing link” would prove to be. 

‘ Prof. Romanes, of Cambridge University, England, 
who was a zealous advocate of Darwinism, in his work en- 
titled Darwin and after Darwin, speaks of man’s descent 
from monkeys as a constituent part of the doctrine of 
Darwinism. Some of his declarations are as follows: “Our 
immediate forefathers, the quadrumana”—‘“Our quadrum- 
anous ancestry”’—‘Take for example, the case of monkeys 
becoming men.’—‘To return to the case of apes becoming 
men.’ Hetakes upand replies to the question, “Why 
should not all monkeys have become men?” Like Dar- 
win and Haeckel, he speaks of a rudimentary tail and 
gives pictured representations of the tail in the gorilla and 
in man, 3 

/ The late Prof. Drummond, of Scotland, seemed not to 
be willing to avow full belief in Darwin’s views of man’s 
origin. Heremarks that the idea of his Simian descent 
has told almost fatally against the wide acceptance of the 
doctrine of evolution. In repelling the sarcasm that Dar- 
winism makes man “a reformed monkey,” he says that “it 
is certainly the fact that man is not descended from any 
existing ape.’ 4 This accords with the hypothesis that the 
“missing link,” the anthropoid ape that was man’s immedi- 
ate ancestor, is extinct, or at least has not been found, liv- 
ing or dead. But after all this, Prof. Drummond goes the 

(1) Crits.and Address, p 242. 

(2) Man’s Place in Nature, p. 184. 


(3) Darwin and after Darwin, Vol. 1, pp. 76, 80, 96, 342, 344. 
(4) Ascent of Man, p. 78. 


I2 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


full length in asserting man’s Simian descent. He quotes, 
with express approval, the declaration of Prof. Romanes 
that the embryonic covering called /axugo, “appears to be 
useless for any purpose other than that of emphatically 
declaring man achild of the monkey.” ! He also, like so 
many evolutionists, speaks of men as having tails and 
muscles to wag them. He remarks that “it may seem dis- 
appointing to the evolutionistthat a distinct external tail 
should not be found in man.” But as a sort of apology for 
man anda consolation to evolutionists, he states that all 
the anthropoid apes most allied to man have long since 
parted with their visible, external tails. He seems to 
think that evolutionists should be well satished that man 
has even the stump of a tail left, and the muscles to wag 
it. Asa further alleviation of the disappointment, the 
Professor gives the assurance that the phenomenon of club- 
foot is another proofofSimian descent. ‘‘Club-footis simply 
gorilla-foot—a case of the arrested development of a char- 
acter which apparentlv came along the line of the direct 
Simian stock.” 2 

Mr. John Fiske, an admirer and follower of Spencer, 
an ardent champion of Darwinism, and a voluminous 
author, has much to say concerning the Simian origin of 
man. He speaks of ‘the time when men first appeared 
upon the earth as creatures zoologically distinct from apes” 
—‘“the ape-like progenitors of man’’—‘the human race 
originating by a slow process of development from a race 
of non-human primates, similar to the anthropoid apes”— 
“the marvelous shading off of collective apehood into 
Deity.” > He says: “Man is not only a vertebrate, a mam- 
mal,and a primate, but he belongs, asa genus, to the 
catarhine family of apes. And just as lions, leopards, 
and lynxes—different genera of the cat-family—are des- 
cended from acommon stock of carnivora, back to which 
we may also trace the pedigrees of dogs, hyenas, bears, 
and seals, so the various genera of platyrhine and catar- 
hine apes, including man, are doubtless descended from 
a common stock of primates, back to which we may also 
trace the converging pedigrees of monkeys and lemurs 
until their ancestry becomes indistinguishable from that 
of rabbits and squirrels.” 4 

(1) Ascent of Man, p. 94. 

(2) Ascentof Man, p. 96. 


(3) Cos Philos , Vol. 2, pp. 291, 322, 419. | Excursions, p. 76. 
(4) Destiny of Man, p. 20. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 13 


It is thus that this stalwart and zealous advocate of 
Darwinism speaks of man’s origin. The declaration con- 
cerning “the shading off of collective apehood into Deity,” 
seems to suggest the advancement of man’s “brother 
apes,” | as wellas of man himself, toward Deification, and 
their development hereafter into gods. It is but fair to 
state, however, that Mr. Fiske holds that evolution has 
already done its best and can produce nothing higher than 
man. 

Such are the views current among the Darwinists. , 
We do not by any means say that all evolutionists hold 
these views. Prof. Le Conte is quite shy of this dogma of 
man’s Simian descent. Prof.Gray, of Harvard University, 
who, according to his own declaration, ‘is in his own fash- 
ion a Darwinian,” 2 ventures to affirm that “sober evolu- 
tionists do not suppose that man has descended from mon- 
keys.” 3 This statement surprises us in view of the facts 
above mentioned. Were not Darwin, Huxley, Romanes, 
Drummond, soder evolutionists? Prof. Gray himsel: has 
said: “The four-handed race will not serve for our fore- 
runners—at least, not until some monkey, live or fossil, is 
producible with great-tces, instead of thumbs, upon his 
nether extremities.” 4 It was the prevalence of this dogma 
among Darwinists that led Agassiz to say that ‘the re- 
sources of the Deity cannot be so meagre that in order to 
create a human being endowed with reason he must change 
amonkey intoa man. This is, however, a personal 
opinion, and has no weight as an argument.” 4 

After all, why should a Darwinian shrink from the 
hypothesis of man’s Simian descent? It is certainly no 
more dishonorable to be descended from monkeys than 
from creatures lower than fish-worms and frog-spawn. It 
is true that a still humbler origin is ascribed to man in the 
Biblical cosmogony; for fish-worms, frog-spawn, and the 
lowest of living molecules are superior to particles of dust; 
and the sacred record declares that “the Lord God formed 
man of the dust of the ground.” But this applies only to 
man’s body. His soul came not from earth, but asa breath 
from the Lord God. The offensiveness of Darwinism con- 
sists in this, that it maintains that man’s sow/, as well as 

(1) Destiny of Man, p. 29. 

(2) Darwinana, Pref. p. VI. 

(3) Wat. Sct. and Religion, p. tot. 
(4) Darwiniana, p. 92. 
(1)Methods of Study, Pref. p. 4. 


i4 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


body, hada brutal origin and that he is separated only by 
one or two removes from the monkeys. 


SECTION 4.—IS DARWINISM CONSISTENT WITH THEISM? 
IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF 
CREATION? 


We have no hesitation in answering the first question 
affirmatively. 

The compatibility of belief in Darwinism with belief 
in Theism is demonstrated by such facts as these: Darwin, 
at least when he was writing his greatest work, was a 
thorough-going Theist. In it he repeatedly recognizes 
creation and the Creator. Many of the most distinguished 
evolutionists have been or are Theists—Sir Charless Lyell, 
Lord Kelvin, Prof. Drummond, Prof. Gray, Prof. Le Conte, 
Prof. Romanes, Prof. Dana, Mr. Fiske,—in fact the great 
and overwhelming majority of evolutionists. Darwin, 
Spencer and other evolutionists have urged the acceptance 
of their hypothesis on the ground that it reflects more 
honor on God than does the traditional view of special 
creations, and therefore is more consonant with Theism. 

Still further: The doctrine of evolution, or at leasta 
doctrine of evolution, allows the belief that God created 
and rules the world through secondary causes and natural 
laws. Christians recognize God as the creator of their 
bodies, though at the same time they recognize their bodies 
as having originated, not by immediate, but mediate or 
derivative creation, which is an evolutionary process. All 
Christians believe God to be as really and fully the Author 
of their own bodies as if they had originated like Adam’s 
by special creation. It must be admitted that God oper- 
ates mainly through secondary causes and natural laws. 
Only the bodies of the first human pair and the original 
pairs of other species originated by immediate creation. 
After these, generation after generation of men and beasts 
and birds and reptiles and fishes, and of plants also, have 
originated by evolutionary creation. 

The error of some evolutionists consists in pushing 
the evolutionary idea so far as to exclude special creation 
entirely. But the doctrine of evolution in itself is not in- 
consistent with Theism. 

But evolution and Darwinism, as taught by Darwin, 


come into conflict with the Biblical cosmogony at several 
points. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 15 


1. The Bibleaffirms the fact and doctrine of spectal crea- 
tions. It declares that the world originated bya special 
creative act. “In the beginning God created the heaven 
and the earth.” 1 It declares that also man originated by 
special creation, Adain’s body being formed of the dust of 
the ground and his soul coming as an inspiration from the 
Almighty. 2 It further declares that the first woman 
originated by a special creation, Eve being made of a rib 
taken from the side of Adam.? According to the sacred 
account, the lower animals and plants originated by 
special creation. For, although plants and land animals 
were evolved from the earth and aquatic animals were 
evolved from the waters, yet in all these cases of evolution 
the fiat of God. was the creative cause. The earth had no 
power in itself to originate vegetables and terrestrial ani- 
mals, and the water had no power in itself to originate 
aquatic animals. Though muchof the material entering 
into the composition of the plants and of the bodies of the 
animals was taken from the water and the earth, the plants 
and animal bodies were not the result of mere natural 
laws and forces. But for the Divine fiat and Divine 
energy which accompanied it, neither plants nor animals 
would have been produced. Thus, according to the Bibli- 

cal narrative, both plants and animals and the world itself 

began by special creation. But evolution and Darwinism, 
or at least many evolutionists, are altogether opposed to 
the theory of special creations. Some of the evolutionists 
and Darwinists are more intolerant of this theory than the 
advocates of it are of evolution. 

2. The Darwinian hypothesis does not accord with the 
Bible account of the origin of man. Moses teaches that 
man is distinct from all other earthly beings, and 
had a distinct origin. According to Genesis, man is not 
derived, either as to body or soul, from any of the lower 
animals. The Darwinian notion that the human body is 
merely an improved brutal form andthe human soul the 
psychical entity that formerly belonged to some beast, 
reptile, fish, insect or molecule, is altogether excluded. 

/ 3. Darwinism is inconsistent with the Biblical account 

of the origin of woman. According to that account, there 

was at first but one woman, made out of a rib or lump 

taken from the side of the man. Darwinism teaches that 

women, as wellas men, were gradually developed out of 
(1) Gen. 1:1. (2) Gen. 2:7. (3) Gen. 2:21-2. 


16 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


lower animals. 

4. Darwinism is not in accord with the sacred record in 
declaring that all existing species have been derived from 
antecedent species. 

We are not sure that the sacred record forbids the 
notion that one species was ever derived from another. 
It is not certain that the phrase “after their kind,” as em- 
ployed in the first chapter of Genesis, is equivalent to 
“according to their species.’ 1 It may perhaps mean ac- 
cording to their nature; and if so, we do not know that 
there is anything in the Bible to indicate that no species 
is ever derived from an antecedent one. 

But contrary to Darwinism, the Bible teaches that 
vegetables, water animals, land animals and man, all origi- 
nated independently of one another, and at differnt times; 
plants on the 3rd day (or period); aquatic animals in the 
sth period; terrestrial animals (including mankind) in the 
6th period. Besides, it is stated in Genesis, that plants 
and terrestrial animals proceeded from the earth, and 
aquatic animals from the water. Thus the Darwinian 
hypothesis that land animals are descended from aquatic 
animals is set aside, together with the further hypothesis 
of the descent of all genera and species, living and dead, 
from one or from four or five primordial forms. 

5. Once more: we think it is to be inferred from the 
sacred record that at first there must have been but a 
small number of plants and animals. 

We think it probable that God called into being only 
a single pair in each species, just as originally there was 
but a single human pair. God said to-Adam and Eve, 
“Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.”* A 
similar command had been previously given to aquatic 
animals and birds, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the 
waters in the seas, and let the fowl multiply in the 
earth.” ° In regard to terrestrial animals, the same facts 
are implied, fewness in number at first and adaptation to in- 
crease. The Lord did not fill the world with plants and 
animals at once. Just asthere was but one human pair 
when God gave that first commandment to increase and 
multiply, so there was, as we understand, but one pair at 
first in each species of plants and animals. Each pair and 

(1)~Gen. I:11-12, 21, 24-5. 

CY et vee 

(3) Gem. 1:22. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 17 


their descendants increasing in a regular geometrical ratio, 
as they would do until their vast numbers caused “the 
struggle for existence” to begin, would inashort time 
spread over the earth. Huxley furnishes the following 
calculation: He supposes a plant to yield fifty fertile seeds 
each year and each seed to produce a fertile plant, the in- 
crease being fifty-fold each year. The result is 1,953,125,- 
000,000,000 at the end of the ninth year. If the dry-land 
surface of the earth is 51,000,000 of square miles, 1,421,798,- 
400,000,000 square feet, and, if one square foot is allowed 
to each plant, there would be 531,326,600,000,000 fewer 
square feet than would be required at the end of the ninth 
year, and more than one fourth of the plants would be 
without standing room. 1 

A pair of animals increasing at a two-fold ratio every 
year would, in twenty years, number more than two mil- 
‘lions, andin fifty years would number 2 quadrillions, 251 
trillions, 799 billions, 813 millions, 685 thousands, and 248. 
To furnish standing room for such a multitude would re- 
quire many worlds such as ours, 

Such calculations accord with the Divine command 
given to the newly created species to increase and multi- 
ply and fill the earth. 

But to return: according tothe account of creation in 
Genesis there was at first but one pair of the human 
species, and but few of other species, probably but asingle 
pair of each species. But Darwinism teaches that many 
human beings appeared by development at one time and 
also many individuals of each species in the same way. 
Thus is shown another divergence between Darwinism and 
the Biblical cosmogony. Besides, many Darwinists ignore 
the above mentioned facts in their arguments drawn from 
the geographical distribution of species. 

6. Finally, Darwinism is inconsistent with what the} 
Bible teaches in regard to the origin of human depravity 
and sinfulness. 

The Bible doctrine is that man was created morally 
perfect, but that through the temptation of an evil agent 
he transgressed the command of his Creator and thus fell 
from his sinless and happy condition. This is the teach- 
ing notin Genesis alone, but elsewhere in the Bible. 
“God hath made man upright; but they have sought out 
many inventions.” 2—“As by one man sin entered into 

(1) Huxley’s Origin of Species, p. 119. (2)eficele. 7:28: 


18 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all 
men, for that all have sinned.” 1—‘For as in Adam all 
die.” 2 But Darwinism teaches that man isin no sensea 
fallen being; that he has reached his present condition by a 
continued ascent from the very lowest of the lower animals; 
and that whatever human depravity and original sin there 
are, have been inherited from lions, tigers and hyenas, or 
other brutal ancestors. 

Let it be observed that in the above discussion we 
speak of Darwinism as taught by Darwin and leading Dar- 
winists, not as modified and recast by some advocate in 
order to meet difficulties and objections; as, for example, 
by Le Conte, who at times seems ready to give up Darwin- 
ism, in order to save the general doctrine of evolution. 3 

(1) Rom. 5:12. 


(Ay Stee OF AIS: 22: ie 
(3) Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought, pp. 270-1. 


CHAPTER: If. 
DARWINISM NOT YET PROVED. 


THE main point to be considered in this chapter is 
whether Darwinism zs fo be accepted as an established theory, 
or is to be regarded as az hypothesis not proved as yet. 

Able men are found on both sides of this question. 
Prof. Heeckel, of Germany, decides that Darwinism ought 
no longer to be called an hypothesis, and that whoever 
still seeks for proofs shows that he does not understand the 
theory, or that he is ignorant of biological facts. ! Huxley 
at one time claimed evolution to be a demonstrated theory. 2 
Prof. Le Conte “is confident that evolution is adsolutely cer- 
tain—certain as the law of gravitation—far more certain.” 3 
Many other able and distinguished men have expressed 
similar views. 

But many able men, and even some of the most dis- 
tinguished Darwinists, do not hold these views. Darwin 
himself, in his “Origin of Species,’ speaking of the diffi- 
culties which beset his hypothesis, said: “I can never re- 
flect on them without being staggered.” 4 In a later work 
he wrote in the same modest style, thus: ‘The principle 
of natural selection may be looked at as a mere hypothesis, 
but rendered in some degree probable by what we posi- 
tively know of variability of organic beings in a state of 
nature.” 5 

Spencer, in comparing the hypothesis of evolution 
with that of special creations, says of the former: ‘It has 
the support of some evidence, instead of being absolutely 
unsupported by evidence.” ® He says further: ‘““The hypo- 
thesis of evolution, then, has direct support from facts 
which, though smallin amount, are of the kind required.” 7 

(1) Atst. of Credtion, Vol. 1, p. 169. 

(2) American Adds, Lect. Ill, p. 71. 
(3) Evolution and its Relation, etc.,pp. 65-6. 
(4) Origin of Species, p. 154. 

(5) Variation of Domesticat on, Vol. 1 p. 9. 
(6) Biology, Vol. I, p. 351. 

(7) Biol. Vol. 1, p. 353. 





20 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


Without the fear of Hzeckel before his eyes, Spencer 
speaks of evolution as an hypothesis, and we believe he 
never designates it in any other way. 

One of Tyndall's declarations is as follows: ‘Those 
who hold the doctrine of evolution are by no means ignor- 
ant of the uncertainty of their data, and they yield no more 
to it than a provisional assent.” ! 

One of Prof. Drummond’s latest deliverances is as 
follows : 

“No oneasks more of evolution at present than per- 
mission to use it as a working theory.” 2—“Even were this 
theory perfected, its first lesson would be that it was itself 
a phase of the evolution of farther opinion, no more fixed 
than a species, 10 more final than the theory which it dis- 
placed.,” 3 

Again Prof. Drummond says in regard to Darwinism : 

“There is everywhere at this moment the most dis- 
turbing uncertainty as to how the ascent even of species 
has been brought about. The attacks on the Darwinian 
theory from the outside were never so keen as are the con- 
troversies now raging, in Scientific circles, over the funda- 
mental principles of Darwinism.” 4 

Prof. Virchow, of the University of Berlin, speaks thus: 

“FRvidence fails to show that by progressive develop- 
ment an ape can ever become a man.—The verdict is pro- 
nounced that all investigation down to the present day has 
not lead to evidence, but merely to conjecture—The re- 
serve which most naturalists inipose on themselves is sup- 
ported by the small actual proofs for Darwin’s theory.— 
Facts seem to teach the invariability of the human species 
and the animal species.” 5 

The celebrated Max Miiller, of Oxford University 
England, says: “There is one barrier (between animal and 
man) which no one has yet ventured to touch—the barrier 
of language.—Language is our Rubicon and no brute will 
dare to cross it. ®—I can iniagine, with evolutionist philos- 
ophers, that an animal without organs of sense may in 
time grow into an animal with organs of sense. I can im- 
agine it; itis not utterly inconceivable. But, taking all 
that is called animal on one side and man on the other, I 
must call it inconceivable that any known animal could 

(1) Fragments of Science, p. 162. 
(2) Ascent of Man, p. 6. (3) p 
( 


mf 
4) Ascent of Man, p. 5. (5) Popular Science, pp. 43, 50-52. 
6) Science of Language, ist series, p. 23, 354. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND ‘TELEOLOGY. at 


ever develop language.” 1 

Prof. Whitney, of Yale University, after describing 
Heeckel as “one of those headlong Darwinians who take 
the whole process of development by natural selection as 
already proved and unquestionable, and go on with the 
fullest and most provoking confidence to draw out its de- 
tails,” proceeds as follows: 

“But we cannot think the theory yet converted into 
a scientific fact; and those are perhaps the worst foes to 
its success who are over-hasty to take it and use it asa 
proved fact.” 2 

Prof. Goldwin Smith goes. only so far as to say that 
“man, instead of being created out of the dust of the earth 
by Divine fiat, has in al/ probability been evolved out of it 
by a process of development through a series of intermedi- 
ate forms.” 3 

Prof. Mivart maintains that evolution is not altogether 
without obscurities and cannot yet be considered as fully 
demonstrated; and that “the special Darwinian hypo- 
thesis is beset with certain scientific difficulties, some of 
which are absolutely insuperable.” 4 He further declares 
that natural selection as accounting for the origin of man 
is “an utterly irrational and puerile hypothesis;” and, that 
no arguments have been adduced ‘to make probable his 
origin from speechless, irrational and non-moral brutes.” 6 

Ruskin, in one of his “Lectures on the Relation of 
Natural Science to Art,” given before the University of 
Oxford, 1871, says: ‘“‘I have just used the expression, ‘had 
Darwinism been true,’ implying its fallacy more positively 
than is justifiable in the present state of our knowledge; but 
very positively I can say to you that I have never heard 
yet one logical argument in its favor, and I have heard and 
read many that were beneath contempt.’ ” ® 

Prof. Gray, of Harvard University, holds Darwinism 
as a provisional hypothesis, and proclaims himself ‘in his 
own fashion a Darwinian.” 7 Yet he declares it to be “un- 
proven and cumbered prima facie with cumulative im- 

(1) Lects on Darwinand Philos of Lang. Eccl. Mag. July,. 


1873, P. 154. | rene . 

(2) Ortental and Linguistic Studies, pp. 293-4. 
(3) Lectures and Essays, p. 89. 

(4) Genesis of Species, p. 4. 

(5) Lessons from Nature, pp. 185-6. 

(6) The Eagle's Nest, Ten Lectures &c., p. 156. 
(7) Darwiniana, Pref. p. vi. 


22 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


probabilities,’ 1 but notwithstanding as “not unlikely to 
be largely accepted long before it can be proved.” 2 He: 
further declares that, as compared with the Nebular 
hypothesis, “evolution is more complex, loose and less 
provable.” 3 

Prof. Jevons, of University College, London, says: 
“The theories of Darwin and Spencer are doubtless not 
demonstrated; they are to some extent hypothetical, just 
ail the theories of physical science are to some extent 
hypothetical, and open to doubt.” 4 

From the above presentation of the views of scientists, 
many of them evolutionists, it may be inferred that the 
evidence for Darwinism is not so clear and convincing as 
some of its more ardent advocates suppose. It may be 
further inferred that the fact that aman rejects Darwinism, 
or hesitates to accept it as an established theory, does not 
prove him to be either ignorant, irrational or perverse. 
The intolerant and denunciatory spirit and tone of some 
Darwinists are wz-Darwinian, and unfit them to be either 
witnesses or judges in the case. Of this class is Prof. 
Heeckel, of Jena. In the language of Prof. Whitney, of 
Yale University, “This gentleman, particularly, appears to 
be oneof those headlong Darwinians who take the whole 
process of development by natural selection as already 
proved and unquestion able, and goon with the fullest and 
most provoking confidence to draw out its details.” 6 
Heeckel denounces not only the theologians, but also the 
speculative philosophers, the majority of the naturalists, 
including the zoologists and entomologists, for their re- 
jection of Darwinism; and, among other things, he charges 
all these classes with superstition and shameful ignor- 
ance. § 

Mr. John Fiske is another of the confident and dogma- 
tic champions of Darwinism. He assumes and asserts 
that the evidence in its favor is indubitable and over- 
whelming. In order that our readers may judge for then1- 
selves of the spirit and tone of this controversial and volu- 
minous writer, we present some specimens of his style. 
Prof. Mivart; who ventured to make some criticisms ad- 

(1) Darwiniana, p. 109. 


( _ PD. 54- ae 

(3) Natural Science and Religion, p. 61. 
(4) Principles of Science, p. 762. 

(5) Oriental and Linguistic Studies, p. 293. 
(6) History of Creation, Vol. 1, p. 294. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 23 


verse to Darwinism, was assailed by him in varied pharses 
and imputations, such as, “not commendable for scientific 


spirit’—‘“not a disinterested student of nature’—“real 
genius for twisting things”—‘“unintelligent study’—“can- 
tankerousness”’—‘“‘want of sagacity’—“guilty of remarks 


much better befitting ignorant priests.’ ! Such is the 
style in which Mr. Fiske almost invariably refers to Prof. 
Mivart, who though in some sense an evolutionist, rejected 
some of the points and proofs of Darwinism. Yet the dis- 
tinguished Huxley classed Mivart with A. R. Wallace, 
declared them both to be men of ‘acknowledged scientific 
competence,” and commended them for “giving an atten- 
tion, as rare as it is needful, to the philosophical questions 
which underlie all physical science.” 2 

Mr. Fiske has also a special dislike for theologians, 
except for the few whose views coincide with his own. 
Fiske himself is an intense theologian. Theology seems 
generally to be uppermost in his mind. He often assails 
the current theology. At one time he declares it to be 
derived from polytheism; at another he affirms that it is 
descended from fetishism; at another, he oracularly decides 
that it is fetishism itself. His favorite theologians are 
Spinoza, Gothe, Lessing and Strauss. For such theolo- 
gians as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Pas- 
cal, Paley, Chalmers, McCosh, and indeed for theologians 
in general, he again and again manifests his dislike and 
aversion. His writings abound in such declarations as 
the following: ‘‘thoughtless remark sometimes heard from 
theologians and penny-a-liners”—‘“this kind of misrepre- 
sentation is dear to theologians” —‘intense hostility which 
all consistent theologians feel toward Mr. Darwin’—‘Ide- 
alists, Positivists, theologians and penny-a-liners”’—‘“natu- 
ral theology is fetishism.” 

Thus writes Mr. John Fiske, author of “Cosmic Philo- 
sophy” and various other books. The thought of Prof. 
Mivart and theologians seems to fill him with aversion and 
impatience. He is a man of strong predilections and an- 
tipathies. Heis by nature a dogmatist. His forte is as- 
sumption and asseveration. His most frequent argument 
is to affirm that a thing has already been proved and is in- 
disputable. He often refers to matters in one of his books 
as having been established and settled in others. Though 


(1) Cosmic Philos Vol. 2. p. 475, et passim, 
(2) Critiques and Addresses, p. 219. 


24 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


he is a man of intelligence and ability, yet his strength and 
charm as a writer and speaker result mainly from his cool 
assumption and unmitigated dogmatism. After all, such 
qualities, if real talents are not entirely wanting, make a 
man interesting and attractive. We further note that 
though Mr. Fiske declares those who do not accept evolu- 
tion to be ignorant, lacking in mental discipline, blinded 
by “theological fetishism,” and led by ‘‘priests, theologians 
and penny-a-liners,” he nevertheless after all admits that 
evolution at the present time ‘is the possession of only a 
few disciplined minds.” ! 

We conclude that Mr. John Fiske lacks the judicial 
mind; and that, though he may be a formidable champion 
in the arena of debate, he is not fitted to weigh evidence 
and argument. That such a one should declare evolution 
to be proved and established is not surprising nor of much 
consequence. 

We have referred to Prof. Le Conte as holding and 
affirming that “evolution is certain—certain as gravita- 
tion; nay, more certain than gravitation.” Thus he teaches 
in his book published in 1897.2 But in a former book, 
published in 1874, he teaches very differently. In this 
earlier book he propounds the doctrine (though he admits 
that geology, the only witness in the case, seems to teach 
otherwise), as follows: ‘“‘Now, of the various conceivable 
secondary causes and processes by means of some of 
which we must believe species originated, by far the most 
probable is certainly that of evolution from other species. 
This, be it observed, is by no means proved.” 3 

When Le Conte declared that ‘evolution zs dy xo means 
proved,” he was, as he is now, professor of geology in the 
University of California, an able, scientific and cultured 
man. And there are yet many scientific and cultured 
men, evolutionists too among them, who, as we have 
shown, believe and maintain that evolution is by no means 
proved and is only an hypothesis. All these, together 
with his former self, must Prof. Le Conte virtually charge 
with some degree of blindness or perverseness, when he 
today affirms that evolution is absolutely certain. 

Huxley, as we have said, at one time claimed that 
evolution had become an established theory. He claimed 

(1) Cosmic Philos. Vol. 2, pp. 271-4. 


(2) Evolution and its Relation to Religion, pp. 65, 66. 
(3) Religion and Science, p. 23. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 25 


for it even demonstration. ! But there are several consid- 
erations which detract from the value of his testimony in 
the case. 

1. At the very time he put forth this claim, he enerva- 
ted the word demonstration by the declaration that “the 
occurrence of historical events is said to be demonstrated 
when the evidence that they happened is of such a char- 
acter as to render the assumption that they did not happen 
in the highest degree improbable.” ¢ This is a circuitous 
way of saying that an historical event is demonstrated by 
proving it to be in the highest degree probable. But 
the highest degree of probability is not demonstration. 
Evidently Mr. Huxley wished to say that evolution had 
been demonstrated, or is demonstrable, though he knew 
that the evidence was not sufficient to produce demonstra- 
tion in the usual and proper meaning of the word. 

2. Huxley in matters of opinion was of a dogmatic and 
imperious disposition. President Porter rightly applied 
to him Rev. Sidney’s Smith's description of Macaulay— 
“cock-sure of everything.’ Suchaman can hardly hold 
anything as a mere hypothesis for any considerable time. 
He is pretty sure, after using it asa working hypothesis 
for a short time, to begin to insist that it has been proved 
and established as a theory; and a little further on he is 
prepared to maintain that it has been demonstrated and is 
no more to be called in question or doubted than a proved 
proposition in geometry. 

3. In claiming evolution to be conclusively established | 
by proof, Huxley went back on his own dreclarations: “If |, 
it (Darwinism) fails to explain any one phenomenon, it is — 
so far weak, so far to be suspected; though it may havea 
perfect right to claim provisional acceptance.” 3 Now 
heredity, variation, extinction of species, infertility of 
hybrids, fertility of mongrels, Darwinism does not explain, 
as Huxley well knew. Again, he declared: “Our accept- 
ance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be provisio;nal so 
long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting and 
so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced 
by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile and 
their progeny are fertile with one another, that link will 
be wanting.’ 4 He further said, “I adopt Mr. Darwin’s 

(1) American Adds., Wect. III, p 71. 
(2) American Adds., Lect. III, p. 71. 


(3) Man’s Placein Nature, p. 127. 
(4) Mans Place in Nature, p. 127. 


26 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


hypothesis, therefore, subject to the production of proof 
that physiological species may be produced by selective | 
breeding.” | As is well known, and as must be admitted, 
the conditions thus required have not been fulfilled, nor 
the evidence, thus demanded, produced. According to the 
conditions and tests proposed by Huxley himself, evolution 
is not an established theory, but remains to this day an 
unproved hypothesis. 

A consideration of the kind of evidence offered in 
support of evolution and Darwinism tends to the same 
conclusion. 

It has sometimes been claimed that the evidence is 
inductive. Induction may be and indeed is employed in 
the establishment of some subordinate points involved in 
the discussion; but, from the very nature of the case, in 
reference to the main question, no inductive arguments 
are employed or can be employed. No one presents or 
can present an example of transmutation. No one has 
seen or claims to have seen an animal or plant changed 
from one species to another. Exaimples of the production 
of varieties are cited. But varieties or breeds are not 
species. It is indeed argued that as new varieties or 
breeds are frequently produced, so also new species are or 
may be produced; or that varieties will become new species, 
if only sufficient time is allowed. But such reasoning is 
not zzductive, but analogical. The arguments employed in 
support of Darwinism are pretty much allof the latter 
kind. Analogical arguments are not entirely without force. 
They prove possibility, sometimes some degree of proba- 
bility, but are not conclusive.2 Darwin himself says, 
“Analogy may be a deceitful guide.” 8 The Darwinist 
being thus without any examples of observed transmuta- 
tion and therefore without inductive evidence,—recogniz- 
ing analogical reasoning as at best inconclusive, and some- 
times as fallacious,—is under the necessity of employing 
inferences, probabilities and conjectures in support of his 
views. The advocates of Darwinism deal much in this 
kind of argumentation. | 

The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to 
the illustration of this point. We begin with the loose 
reasoning of Darwin. We admire him indeed for his great 


(1) Man’s Place in Nature. p. 128. 
(2) See chapter IX, p. 479. 
(3) Origin of Species, p. 419. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 27 


candor, his keenness of observation and his inductive 
power. But hisreasoning often involves much assump- 
tion, imagination and conjecture. Thus, within the space 
of one page, we have the following statements: ‘There 
seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that 
natural selection has actually converted a swimbladder into 
a lung.—/ can indeed hardly doubt that all vertebrate ani- 
mals having true lungs have descended by ordinary gener- 
ation from an ancient prototype, of which we know noth- 
ing.—We caz thus, as I zzfer from Prof, Owen’s interesting 
description of these parts, wzderstandthe strange fact.— 
But z¢7zs conceivable that the now utterly lost branchize 
might have been gradually worked in by natural selection 
for some quite distinct purpose.—/f 7s probable that organs 
which at a very ancient period served for respiration have 
been actually converted into organs of flight.—It is so im- 
portant to bear in mind ¢he probablity of conversion from 
one function to another, that I will give one more instance. 
—Now I ¢kink no one will dispute that the ovigerous frena 
in the one family are strictly homologous with the branch- 
iz of the other family.—Therefore / do not doubt that little 
folds of skin have been gradually converted by natural 
selection into branchize.” | 

Let the reader observe however many assumptions, 
conjectures and uncertainties are introduced into this pas- 
sage: “seems to be no great difficulty in beleving—TI can 
hardly doubt—we can understand—as Il infer—it ts concetv- 
able—bear in mind the probability—f think—T do not doubt.” 
And all this within the brief space of one page. Possibly 
some one is ready to suggest, by way of excuse for such 
illogical argumentation, that when Darwin thus wrote, he 
was struggling with “the grave difficulties which, when- 
ever he reflected on them, made him stagger,” 2 and, that 
he was endeavoring merely to indicate the Aosszdzlity of 
natural selection. This plea might perhaps be accepted 
as a palliation were it not for the fact that the same loose 
and illogical argumentation appears elsewhere. Thus as- 
sumption and conjecture with doubt and uncertainty char- 
acterize Darwin’s account of the origin of man. 

“The most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of the 
vertebrata, at which we are able to obtain an odscure glance, 
apparently consisted of a group of marine animals resem- 

(1) Origin of Species, pp. 171-2. 

(2) Ortgin of Species, p. 154. 


28 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


bling the larvee of existing Ascidians. These animals 
probably gave rise to a group of fishes as lowly organized 
as the lancelet; and trom these the Ganoids, and other 
fishes like the Lepidosiren, must have been developed. 
From such fish a very small advance would carry us on to 
the Amphibians. We have seen that birds and reptiles 
were once intimately connected together; and the Mono- 
tremata now connect maminals with reptiles in a sight 
degree. But xo one can at present say by what line of des- 
cent the three higher and related classes, namely mam- 
mals, birds andreptiles, were derived from the two lower 
vertebrate classes, namely Amphibians and fishes. In the 
class of mammals, the steps are vot difficult to conceive 
which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient 
Marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the 
placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemu- 
ridae; and the zzferval is not very wide from these to the 
Simiadzee The Simiadee then branched off into two great 
stems, the New Worldand Old World monkeys; and from 
' the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory 
of the universe, proceeded.” ! 

Let the reader observe that in this account of. man’s 
descent from molecules resembling the larv e of bottle-like 
nutes, almost every sentence contains a term indicative of 
mere inference, of assumption or conjecture—‘odscure 
glace—apparently—probably—must have been—a_ very 
small advance would carry us—no one can say by what line 
of descent—the steps not difficult—we may thus ascend to 
the Lemuridee—interval not very wide to the Simiade.” 
Darwin was very sure, however, that mam proceeded from 
the Old World monkeys, and that if any single link in the 
preceding chain of descent had never existed, man would 
not have been what he now is. 2 

If it should be asked why a man so candid and able as 
Darwin would deal so largely in assumption and loose ar- 
gumentation, it may be replied, that being fascinated with 
the hypothesis of natural selection he deemed it necessary 
only to prove the mere possibility of the origin of the 
human race and other species in that way. 

Doubtless, in the opinion of some, we shall be guilty 
of intolerable presumption in speaking of the argumenta- 
tion of Spencer as loose and illogical. For he is regarded 


(1) Descent of Man, pp. 164-5. 
(1) Descent of Man, p. 165. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 29 


by many as possessing angelic intellect. He has been de- 
clared the greatest man in modern times, Superior even to 
Newton. To those, however, who regard criticism of him 
as near of kin to sacrilege, we commend the estimate of 
him presented in Darwin's /2z/e and Letters. Darwin wrote 
as follows: “I feel rather mean when I read him. I could 
bear and rather enjoy feeling that he was twice as ingen- 
‘ious aud clever as myself; but when I feel that he is about 
a dozen times my superior, even in the master art of 
wriggling, I feel aggrieved. If he had trained himself to 
observe more, even atthe expense, by the law of balance- 
ment, of some thinking power, he would have been a won- 
derful man.” 

And again: “Such parts of H. Spencer as I have read 
with care impress my mind with the idea of his inexhaus- 
tible wealth of illustration, but never convince me; and so 
I find with others.” Once more: “With the exception of 
special points, I did not even understand H. Spencer’s 
general doctrine; for his style is too hard for me.” | 


The artful wriggling, and the hard style with its con-: 


sequent obscurity, which Darwin thus attributes to Spen- 
cér, are exemplified in his wonderful definitions. One of 
these, his definition of evolution, we have already quoted. 
His definition of life is as follows: “The definite combina- 
tion of heterogenous changes, both simultaneous and suc- 
cessive, 72 correspondence with eternal coexistences and Se- 
guences.” 2 

After all Darwin expressed great admiration for Spen- 
cer as being a wonderful man. We too admire him; we 
admire even his definitions. But we are now chiefly con- 
cerned withthe character of his reasoning. Darwin de- 
clares it to have been to himself and others unsatisfactory 
and unconvincing. Spencer handles facts with the art and 
skill of a dialectician. Even when engaged apparently in 
an inductive process he substitutes his own inferences, ex- 
aggerations, extenuations and assumptions for facts. 

Take his chapter on Genesis as an example. ? In this 
chapter we have a careful presentation neither of facts, 
deductive inferences, nor analogical suggestions, but such 
statements as the following: ‘‘7here is reason to think that 
among the lowest Protozoa, ete—We have good evidence 

(1) Darwin’s Life and Letters, Vol. 2, pp. 239, 301, 371. 


2 Biology, Vol. i, p. 74. 
3) Biol. Vol. 1, p. 219-223. 





30 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


that the union, ete.—The marvelous phenomena naturally 
sug gest the conception—lIt seems obvious that this myster- 
ious power—And zf these compound units, zf under fit 
conditions, they manifest such power—7hen it becomes 
cleay—The same generative agents appear to be merely 
modified epithelium-cells—It appears, too, that in a suc- 
culent English plant—Sundry facts tend likewise to show— 
The evidence goes to show.” 1 

Thus our celebrated philosopher goes on and on filling 
page after page with ideas, inferences and opinions that 
rest at best on mere probabilities, often on conjectures. 
Such argumentation would be damaging to the reputation 
of alinost anybody but that of so distinguished a specula- 
tist. 

Even Huxley, keen and incisive though he was, often 
manifested a readiness and talent for making his own in- 
ferences and beliefs do service instead of facts. In his 
monogram on palaeontology and evolution, he largely does 
this, as follows: 

“Ts it not probable, then, if we go back to the Eocene 
epoch, we shall find soine quadruped related to the Anchith- 
erium? I /¢hizk this desideratum is very nearly, if not 
quite, supplied by Plagiolophus.—It would be hazardous 
to say—But I do not /Aink& there can be any reasonable doubt 
—If the expectation raised by the splints of the horses.— 
I couddas soon admit special creation, at once, as suppose 
that the Perissodactyles and Artiodactyles had no five-toed 
ancestors.—//, as there is great reason to believe, true birds 
existed in the Triassic epoch.—In fact there is even at 
present considerable ground for suspecting the existence of 
Dinosauria in the Permian formations.” 2 Thus this able 
and distinguished scientist in his inductive argumentation 
did not restrict himself to facts ascertained by actual ob- 
servation, but took in as facts things merely zzferred, be- 
lieved, conceived, expected, supposed, nnd even suspected. He 
also displayed talent and facility for founding sweeping 
conclusions on mere hypotheses. Speaking of the funda- 
mental proposition of evolution, he said: ‘That proposition 
is that the whole world, living and not living, is the result 
of mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the 
forces possessed by the molecules of which the: primitive 
nebulosity of the universe was composed. If this be true, 


(1) Biology, Vol. 1, pp. 219-222. 
(2) Cr itigues and Adds., pp. 195-199. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. ai 


itis no less certain that the existing world lay, potentially, 
in the cosmic vapour; and that a sufficient intelligence could 
from a knowledge of the properties of the molecules of that 
vapour, have predicted, say, the state of the Fauna of Great 
Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can say 
what will happen to the vapour of the breath in a cold 
winter’s day.” 1 

In mere style, the first part of this passage is about 
equal to anything written by Spencer. 

Mr. Fiske is an admirer of Spencer, and has evidently 

been influenced by some ot his worse as well as_ better 
qualities as areasoner. We note within a very brief space 
of ‘the Cosmic Philosophy” such symptomatic expressions, 
as the following: 
“Must-go on with increasing rapidity—maust be much more 
conspicuous—Long ages must have elapsed—Wotild ap- 
pear still to be impossible—We can see how was _ fol- 
lowed.”2 All this, together with the abundant use of zfos- 
sible, unimaginable tnconcetvable, is decidedly Spencerian 
in style and spirit. 

RECAPITULATION.—We have presented in the preced- 
ing part of this chapter, the following points: 

1. Manyof the most distinguished scientists have de- 
clared the evidence as yet adduced in favor of evolution to 
to be insufficient to prove and establish it as a theory. 
Many ofthese are evolutionists, believing that evolution 
will be proved by further investigation, but holding it at 
present only as a provisional hypothesis. Evolutionsits 
may be divided into three classes with reference to the 
question in hand: 

(1.) Headlong evolutionists (to use Prof. Whitney’s 
phrase), like Heeckel, Romanes and Fiske, who accept 
evolution fully and absolutely, as proved beyond all reason- 
able doubt. 

(2.) Men like Huxley and Le Conte, who are or have 
been on both sides of the question as to the status of Dar- 
winism. 

(3). Evolutionists, like Tyndall, Virchow, Mivart, Gray, 
Drummond, Whitney and many others, who accept evolu- 
tion as an uzproved hypothesis. ‘This is much the largest 
class. Even Spencer continues to call evolution an hypo- 
thesis. 


(1) Critiques and Adds., p. 272. 
(2) Cosmic Philos., Vol. 2, pp. 292-3. 


Le. COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


2. There isno inductive proof adduced in support of 
evolution and Darwinism. This is not the fault of the ad- 
vocates of these hypotheses. They do not adduce such 
evidence because there is none to adduce. No one has 
ever observed the change of an old species into a new one. 
From the nature of the case, there can be no inductive 
evidence; in fact, no positive evidence at all in favor of 
evolution. The evolutionist must rely on argumentation 
restricted to deductive inferences, analogies and probabili- 
ties, each mode of reasoning involving more or less of un- 
certainty and doubt. 

3. As amatter of fact, the ablest and most distinguished 
Darwinians—Darwin, Huxley, Spencer and others, even 
when claiming and endeavoring to deal with facts, have 
dealt largely with probabilities, assumptions, and doubtful 
inferences. 

In view of such facts it seems to us not unreasonable 
to doubt the doctrine of evolution, and to regard and treat 
it, not as a proved theory, but a mere hypothesis. 


CHAPLERSIIT. 
THE INVARIABILITY OF SPECIES. 


WE propose to prove in this chapter that sfeczes have 
been and are unchangeable. 

We do not use the word unchangeable in an absolute 
sense. We simply deny that species change in the Dar- 
winian sense. Our proposition is that ove species is not trans- 
muted into another. In arguing this question, we shall 
largely employ facts conceded by the ablest and most dis- 
tinguished Darwinists. 

1. We hold that our proposition is established by the 
fact that there are clear examples of the absolute permanence 
of species, and not one clear and admitted case of transmuta- 
tion. 

By the absolute permanence of species, we mean that 
some species have existed through all the geological 
ages—through all the millions and millions of years of 
geologically recorded time. This fact is conceded by the 
most distinguished Darwinists. It is virtually admitted by 
Darwin himself, in his demands for “vast periods of time,” 
“enormous intervals” for the operation of natural selection. 
He speaks of natural selection being at work for a thousand, 
ten thousand, even fourteen thousand generations. He 
brings in the chronological hypothesis of three hundred 
millions of years. Added to all this, he speaks of only a 
few species undergoing change at one and the same time. 
His notion is that while a few species are being transmut- 
ed, all the rest are stationary. But as the process of trans- 
mutation requires countless ages—‘‘enormous intervals of 
time’’—out of thousands of species there must be some 
whose turn has not yet come for the beginning of the 
change.1! Thus the facts as presented, or at least imag- 
ined by Darwin, involve the immutability of many species, 
if not of some individuals of every species. We know in- 
deed that Darwin said that those species which do not 


(1) Origin of Spectes, pp. 400, 403, 95, 101. 


34 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


change will become extinct.! But in regard to this mat- 
ter of permanency of species, he made the following ex- 
press declaration: ‘Both single species and whole groups 
of species last for very unequal periods; some groups, as 
we have seen, having endured from the earliest known 
dawn of life’to the present day; some having disappeared 
before the close of the Paleozoic period.” 2 As an example 
of this unending persistence of species through all geolog- 
ical periods, he refers to the genus Lingula, species of 
which (he declares) “must have continuously existed by an 
unbroken series of generations from the lowest Silurian to 
the present day.” * Thus we have the testimony of Dar- 
win to the fact that some species have existed without 
change from the earliest known dawn of life down to the 
present time. Spencer makes similar admissions. He says: 
‘Some few species, and agood many genera, have continued 
throughout the whole period geologically recorded.” 4 He 
also speaks of “the types that have persisted from ancient 
eras down to our own era.” ® 

Le Conte admits that not only a few, but that most 
species are permanent. Hesays expressly: “In evolution 
all species do notchange. * * * Only the more plastic 
forms change into other species.” 6 

We thus prove that there are clear examples of the ab- 
solute permanence of species, by the testimony of Darwin, 
Spencer and Le Conte, three very competent and trust- 
worthy witnesses to establish a fact of this kind. 

This admitted fact is an important one. For this ad- 
mitted immutability of some species, this persistence of 
some species through all ages, from the first known dawn 
of liteon down to the present time, this permanence of 
some species through the revolutions and changes of all 
geologically recorded time, certainly is presumptive proof 
that all species are permanent. Suppose that the case was 
reversed, and that it was clearly proved and on all hands 
admitted that some species have been transmuted, and that 
it could not be proved that a single species has persisted 
unchanged from one geological epoch to another; most as- 
suredly the Darwinists would in such circumstances claim, 
and they would have aright to claim, that all opposition 

(1) Origin of Species, p. 275. 
) Origin of Species, p. 278. 
Origin of Species, p. 277. 
) 


Biology, vol. 1, p. 322 (5) 


(2 
(3 
(4 Pp. 327. 

(6) Evolution tn its Relation to Religious Thought, pp 2667 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 35 


to their hypothesis should cease. Why, then, should the 
double fact that some species are permanent, and that it is 
not in evidence that a single species has ever been trans- 
muted, not be accepted as conclusive? 

2. But we have another proposition to advance in regard 
to this subject, and it is this: that, according to the show- 
ing of Darwinists, the stability of species ts the general rule, 
and transmution the exception. 

We have shown by the testimony of Darwinists that 
some species are in fact permanent; we will next show by 
the same kind of testimony that most species are perma- 
nent, and that transmutation, if it takes place at all, is ex- 
ceptional. 

This is proved by the declaration of Darwin, already 
quoted, that ‘only a few species are undergoing change at 
any one period.” ! Let it be noted what this declaration 
involves. Of the 2,000,000 of species now existent only a 
few are changing, while the rest are stationary. This is 
true of the past, as well as of the present. Of the 8,000,- 
ooo of species of the past, only a few at any one period 
were undergoing change, while the rest were stationary. 
But as transmutation requires enormously long periods of 
time, permanence must have characterized the great major- 
ity of species in the past as well as in the present. Ac- 
cordingly, Darwin further says: ‘And of the species now 
living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far 
distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic be- 
ings are grouped shows that the greater number of species 
of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have 
left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct.” 

Thus Darwin held that few species undergo change at 
any one period, the great majority being stationary; and 
that few species will have any progeny, the great majority 
becoming extinct, without leaving descendants of any 
kind. According to these facts, permanence isthe general 
rule and transmutation the exception. 

Huxley expressed similar views. In 1862, in speak- 
ing of “persistent types”, he declared the total change that 
has taken place in the different species of plants and ani- 
mals to be astontshingly small, and that an impartial sur- 
vey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology 
negative the common doctrines of progressive modifica- 


(1) Origin of Species, p. 401. 
(2) Origin of Species, p, 423. 


36 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


tion. We admitted indeed that among the verfebru there 
are a few examples of progression, but denzed the existence 
of such examples among the animals of azy of the other 
branches—Mollusca, A#ticulata and Radiata,! In 1870 
he revised these statements and somewhat modified them. 
But, though he softened his former severity of style, he 
adhered substantially to the zdeas expressed by him eight 
years before. He made the following declaration: ‘The 
significance of persistent types, and of the small amount of 
change which has taken place even in those forms that can 
be shown to have been modified, become greater and great- 
er in my eyes the longer I occupy myself with the biology 
of the past.” He further declared that only in the higher 
vertebrata, “the results of recent investigations seem to 
me to leave a clear balance in favor of the doctrine of the 
evolution of living forms one from another.” 2 

Thus we have the testimony of Huxley to the stabili- 
ty of animal species in general. He declares that evidence 
of evolutionary change is found only among the “higher 
vertebrata, and that permanence has characterized the 
great majority of species, including Mollusks, Articulates, 
Radiates and lower Vertebrates in all past time. 

Spencer, though he refers approvingly to Huxley’s 
views as presented above, seems disposed not to admit 
even the evidences of the slight modification as claimed by 
Huxley. He virtually declares that divergence and pro- 
gression are not proved. He quotes Huxley’s declaration: 
“Any admissible hypothesis of progressive modification 
* must be compatible with persistence without progression 
through indefinite periods.” He further declares that “the 
appearance of progress may be, and probably is, mainly 
illusive”’; that the change from lower to higher types in 
successive strata may ‘indicate nothing more than success- 
ive migrations from pre-existing continents,” and, that 
“while the evidence usually supposed to prove progression 
isthus untrustworthy, thereis trustworthy evidence that 
there has been, in many cases, little or no progression.” 
He finally divides types into two classes: (1st), the types 
that have persisted from ancient eras down to our own era; 
(2d), types that have from time to time made their appear- 
ance in the ascending series of strata types, of which some 
are lower and some higher than the types previously re- 


(1) Lay Sermons, pp. 216, 224, 225. 
(2) Critiques and Addresses, pp. 184, 186, 187. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. ei 


corded. With regard to the latter class of types, he declares 
that the evidence does not enable us to say whence they 
came, and whether any of them arose by divergence from 
the previously existent types. ! Thus Spencer teaches 
that, among animals, there are persistent types, species 
that have remained unchanged and unchanging from 
ancient eras to present times; and that, as to other types, 
the evidence does not indicate whether they originated by 
transmutation or otherwise. 

In this we have the admission, that, so far as the evi- 
dence goes, it proves that species have been permanent, 
and that if the origin of species by divergence be accepted 
at all, it must be accepted without evidence. It seems to 
us that Spencer thus gives a deadly blow to Darwinism. 

Le Conte is very emphatic and thorough-going in his: 
admission of the actual permanence of a majority of 
species, as follows: 

“In evolution a// species do notchange. On the con- 
trary, most become rigid and either remain unchanged, 
almost indefinitely, or else die out and leave no descend- 
ants. Only the more plastic forms change into other 
species, but usually into several other species, and thus 
the number of forms may be undiminished, even though 
the larger number of old forms leave no descendants. It is 
true, therefore, of this as well as of other epochs, that the 
greater numberof species are permanent.” 2 

This declaration needs no comment. The distinguish- 
ed author is an evolutionist. 

Prof. Dana, though he takes the ground that ‘no 
species ofanimal survived from the beginning of life on 
the globe to the present time,’ 3 yet refers to the stabili- 
ty and persistence of species, thus: “The same grander 
types of structure that appeared in the Silurian age con- 
tinued to be the grander types through all subsequent 
time.” And again: ‘“Peculiarities in Fauna and Flora of 
a continent or region continue on through successive geo- 
logical eras.” 4 

We think the above testimonies and statements of 
fact, by the most distinguished Darwinists, justify our 
proposition that, according to Darwinism, the great ma- 
jority of species are permanent, andthat transmutation is 

(1) Biology, vo!. 1, pp 323 327. 

(2) Evolutionand tts Relation to Religtous Thought, pp. 266-7. 
(3) Text Book of Geology, p. 382. 

(4) Manual of Geology, pp. 594, 599. 


38 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


exceptional. 
3. Another fact conceded by Darwinists is that only 
part of a species ts ever transmuted. 

According to Darwinism, as above shown, not only is 
natural selection exceptional in this regard, that it trans- 
mutes only a comparatively few species, but it is further 
exceptional in regard to the zzdivzduals of the few species 
which it transmutes. Indeed, according to Darwinism, 
natural selection does not operate on species at all, but on 
maividuals, changing never one species into another, but 
only some individuals of a species into a new species; or into 
several new species. 

We have not indeed observed that Darwin expressly 
recognizes the fact that only some individuals of a species 

‘are ever changed intoa new species, but this notion is 
often szegested by him. Take the following declarations 
as examples. Having spoken of the extreme slowness of 
natural selection as often depending on local influences 
and on immigration, he says: ‘But the action of natural 
selection will probably still oftener depend on some of the 
inhabitants becoming slowly modified.” | And again: 
“Hence the improved and modified descendants of a species 
will generally cause the extermination of the parent 
species.” 2 He goes still farther: “New and improved 
varieties will inevitably supplant and exterminate the 
older, less improved and intermediate varieties.” # 

In these, and many similar declarations, it is taken for 
granted that only some individuals or some varieties of a 
species are ever transmuted, and that no species as a whole 
is ever changed into another species. These declarations 
assume that when a new species arises, the old species 
still persists, its individuals and varieties being merely re- 
ducedin number by the transmutation that has taken 
place. 

These declarations further assume that the persisting 
individuals and varieties must perish. This affirmation, 
that persisting individuals and varieties must perish, illus- 
trates how even Darwin, a man truly admirable for his in- 
tellectual gifts, could, in advocating his views, indulge in 
imaginative speculations in defiance of the plainest facts, 
even facts recognized by himself. He maintained that 
men are descended from the catarhine monkeys, but he 

(1) Origin of Species, p. tor. (2) p. 280. 

(3) Origin of Species, p. 408. 


APPLIED TO. DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 39 


well knew that the catarhines were not exterminated. He 
supposed that the whales are the descendants of black 
bears, buthe well knew thatthe whales did not kill off 
their ancestors, and that black bears are still abundant. 
Whatever Darwin may have believed in regardto the ori- 
gin of dogs, he himself proceeded upon the idea that the 
fact, that wolves and jackals still exist in vast numbers, 
does not prove that dogs are not descended from them. 
He held that men, monkeys and all placental mammals 
have been derived from Marsupials, but of course he was 
well aware that pouched animals, as the opposum and the 
kangaroo, are stillabundant. Hewas of the opinion that 
all breeds of the pigeon are descended from the rock-pig- 
eon, yet the rock-pigeon is not extinct. He claimed that 
the peachis derived from the almond, yet almonds are 
abundant. He held that the nectarine is the offspring of 
the peach, yet the peach is not extinct. 

Possibly some one will be ready tocontend that natur- 
al selection has not had time to complete its work in true 
Darwinian style, and to say, ‘Wait a while—a short time 
geologically speaking—say some hundreds of thousands of 
years, and you will see the black bears all killed off, in the 
struggle for existence, by their offspring, the whales ; o’pos- 
suis, kangaroos and other marsupials by the placentals ; 
rock-pigeons by fan-tails andtumblers ; almonds by peaches; 
peaches by nectarines, and soon. Ofthe admissibility of 
this mode of explanation, we will speak farther on. At | 
present we call attention to the fact that the Darwinian 
hypothesis of the derivation of new from old species sup- 
poses the survival of the latter. Darwin’s declarations 
above quoted in regard to the improved descendants of a 
species exterminating the parent species, take for granted 
the continued existence of the old species after the new 
has been formed. As above stated, Darwin’s view was 
thatonly some individuals or some varieties of the old 
species are transmuted, and that the old species still sur- 
vives, though very liable or perhaps certain to perish in 
the struggle for existence. Thus, as above demonstrated, 
bears, wolves, jackals, catarhine monkeys, rock-pigeons, 
almonds, peaches and other species are considered as still 
existing after other species have been derived from them. 
Even if destined to become extinct through the competi- 
tive struggling for existence by derivative species, this 
fact supposes the survival of the old species, and the trans- 


40 COMMON SENSE AND. LOGIC 


mutation only of some of its individuals or only of some of 
its varieties. 

Some of the disciples of Darwin have adverted to the 
feature of their hypothesis, to which we are now directing 
attention, and have essayed replies to the objections 
founded upon it. Prof. Romanes endeavors to give an- 
swers to the following questions : 

“Tf some species are supposed to have been improved 
by natural selection, why have not all species been similar- 
ly improved? 

“Why should not all invertebrated animals have risen 
into vertebrated ? 

“Why should not all monkeys have become men?” 

The learned Professor turns his attention more spec- 
ially to answering the last question, Why did only some, 
not a// monkeys, become men? And among other things, 
he says the wonder to him is that this improvement should 
have taken place even in one line of descent, and not that 
it should not have taken place also in others. ! To some of 
us there are three wondersin the case. First, itisto us a 
very wondrous thing that monkeys should become men at 
all; second, it is a further wonder, that, if monkeys were 
to become men,the transmutation should have been re- 
stricted to the catarhines, or any other single species; 
third, itis also a wonder that, if the catarhines were to be 
improved and thus to become men, many of them were 
left out; so many indeed that this species of monkey is nu- 
merous at this present time perhaps as ever. 

Le Conte, in trying to account for the fact (as he puts | 
it) that spiders, dogs and monkeys (Le Conte seems to 
have disliked Darwin’s hypothesis of man’s Simian de- 
scent) could never become men, compares ascent in evolu- 
tion to the way of everlasting life as revealed in the Scrip- 
tures, declaring it to be straight and narrow, and that 
“there be few that have found it—in fact, probably two or 
three only at every step.” 2 This distinguished author 
seems to regard transmutation as rare and exceptional as 
saving faith among the Jews in the time of Christ. 

Thus it is that. Darwinians admit and set forth the 
fact that not only are most species permanent, but that 
also really no species is ever transmuted ; natural selection 
operating only on some individuals or some varieties, 


(1) Darwin and after Darwin, vo\ 2, p. 342-6. 
(2) Hvolution and its Relation to Religious Thought, p. 15. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 41 


Taking into view all geologically recorded time, and the 
thousands and millions of species extinct and living, we 
may most assuredly say that, according to the representa- 
tions and admissions of the Darwinians themselves, trans- 
mutation is indeed of rare and exceptional occurrence. In- 
asmuch as nature is uniform in her operations, accomplish- 
ing her ends by working according to general rules and 
not by means of exceptional cases, it isin the highest de- 
gree improbable and almost, if not altogether, incredible 
that, while the great majority of the various species of 
plants and animals are permanent in form and _ structure 
and become extinct without changeand without descend- 
ants, the whole world should be continually stocked with 
new species, by the transmutation of some individuals of a 
comparatively small number of old species. 

4. The improbability thus established that any old. 
species are ever changed into new, is intensified by sever- 
al plain facts and considerations. ; 

(1.) Within the period of human observation species have} 
been universally permanent. Men, horses, camels cows,/ 
sheep, goats, dogs, lions, tigers, bears, crocodiles, 
and other well known animals, have continued without 
change in form and structure for many thousands of years. 
Pigeons, dogs and other domestic animals, cultivated 
among the ancient Egyptians, were just as well developed 
thousands of years ago as are these species in our own 
times. The war-horse, as described in the book of Job, is 
as fine a specimen of the equine species as can be found at 
the present day. Darwin testifies that in Switzerland, dur- 
ing the Neolithic period, the domestic goat was commoner 
than the sheep; and that this very ancient race differed in 
no respect from that now common in Switzerland. 1 

Human efforts have combined with whatever there is 
in natural selection to effect changesin the form and struc- 
ture of many of the lower animals. Fanciers, amateurs, 
sportsmen and all sorts of cultivators have joined their in- 
genuity and skill to natural variation and heredity to 
change as much as possible, cows, horses, dogs, pigeons, 
roses, lilies and other domestic species. But after thous- 
ands of years of persistent effort, the result is neither a 
new species nor an approach to a new species. Horses, 
dogs and pigeons, the species most assiduously cultivated, 
remain unchanged, possessing the same bones, nerves, 

(1) Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. 1, p. 105. 


42 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


muscles, veins, joints limbs and organs with those of 
their own Species in ancient times. 

(2.) But it is scarcely worth while to speak of species re- 
maining permanent for a few thousands of years, since 
there are examples of ten times and a hundred times longer 
permanence. The little animals that built the coral reefs 
of Florida began their work, according to Agassiz, about 
200,000 years ago Dana estimates the age of some coral 
reefs at 384,000 years. 1! Yet the corals that lived and 
worked several hundred thousand years ago are declared 
to be identical in species with those of today. 2 If these 
microscopic beings have persisted so long, and are still per- 
sisting, we may expect to find larger and stronger animals 
remaining unchanged through periods of still more enor- 
mous length. Thegreat antiquity ascribed to many ex- 
isting species—the rhinoceros, bear, hyena, man himself, 
and many other animals, 200,000 years, 400.000, 800,000, 
implies permanence of speciesduring these vast periods ; 
permanence, too, amid all the hardships and horrors of the 
160,000 years of the Glacial period. ? The preservation of 
identity, for so long a period, and in such circumstances, 
seems to us the proof and promise of absolute perma- 
nence. Yet what are even these vast periods of persist- 
ence involved in the great antiquity of man and other liv- 
ing species, as maintained by many Darwinists, compared 
with some other admitted periods of permanence? Many 
of the invertebrate species of the Tertiary were identical 
weth those still living; and, ving species of Foraminifera 
commenced in the Cretaceous. These are the express 
declarations of Le Conte. 4 Now if we .take geological 
chronology as reduced by Lord Kelvin, we have three mil- 
lions of years for Cenozoic times. ‘Those species then, 
which as mentioned above, have existed through the Ter- 
tiary on down to the present time, have maintained their 
specific identity during all that period—3,000,000 of years. 
But if, as Darwin and Spencer admitted, some species have 
persisted through all geologically recorded time, we have 
in them examples of persistence through about 50,000,000 
of years. 

(3.) It may be said that these examples of absolute per- 
manence are few. Butallthe living things that are appro- 
priately denominated frofozoa, or primordials, must be re- 


(1) Manual of Geology, p. 591 (2) Agassiz, Classification, pp. 53-4 
(3) Fiske, Excursions, pp, 30-51, 15]. Comic Philos., p. 295. 
(4) Geology, pp. 508, 511, 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. A3 


garded as invariable. For if they changed into other 

species, the primordial species would cease to exist. If 
this second species should develop into another species, 

then both the primary and the secondary species would 

be annihiliated. Itis thus shown that the protozoa, the 

primary species, must be permanent, unless their place, as 

often as itis made vacant by transmutation, is filled by 

special creation, or by spontaneous generation. For if 
the first species were changed into another, the place of 
this first species could not be filled except in one of the 

ways indicated. The first species being gone, if evolution 

takes place, it must be evolution owutof nothing or evolu- 

tion of living species out of non-living matter. In either 

case we virtually have something out of nothing, or at 

least an effect without an adequate cause. It were 

better to believe that the protozoa, the primordial species, 

have persisted through all the geological ages. But 

then again the next higher species, which we may call 

secondary, must be permanent also, for otherwise its 

place would have to be filled by special creation or 

by spontaneous generation. But if the second species 

were invariable, the third, for the same reason, must also 

be invariable. And so of all the rest. The ground may 

be taken that some zzdividuals of the primitive protozoa - 
varied, but that the sfeczes remained permanent. But, in 

that case, we still have permanence through all geologic- 

ally recorded time, 50 millionsof years as counted by 

Lord Kelvin, 300 millions as counted by Darwin, 

(4.) The claim that natural selection is a very slow and 
gradual process, in view of the facts above stated, is evi- 
dence against the mutability of species. It is indeed 
claimed that all these facts are shown to be consistent with 
Darwinism, by this consideration, that natural selection 
takes long periods of time to do its work and that there- 
fore temporary stability is to be expected. Darwin says: 
“Tf we look to long enough intervals of time, geology plain- 
ly declares that all species have changed; and they have 
changed in the manner which my theory requires, for they 
have changed slowly and in a graduated manner.” 1 But 
Darwin, as we have showed, previously declared that some 
species and groups of species have persisted without change 
from the first dawn of life on down to the present time, 
We have showed, too, that Spencer makes the same dec- 

(1) Origin of Species, p. 403. 


AA COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


laration, and that Le Conte admits that most species are 
permanent, and that but few change. 

But now again comes Darwin and affirms that if we 
will but “look to long enough intervals of time geology 
plainly declares that a// species have changed.” ! Well, 
both he and Spencer had looked (to use Spencer’s expres- 
sion), “through allgeologically recorded time,’ and had 
found some species persisting unchanged through all that 
time. Itseems then, if a// species have changed, that 
some of them must have changed before the first dawn of 
life and before the beginning of geologically recorded time. . 
But this involves self-contradiction and an impossibility, 
especially in view of the fact that it is geology, which Dar- 
win says, plainly declares that a// species have changed. 
But it is thus shown that geological time, vast as itis, 1s 
not sufficient to meet the requirements of natural selection. 
Darwin speaks of this process going on for many thousand 
—yea, a million, even a hundred million of generations. 2 
He counted 300,000:000 of years as having probably elapsed 
since the latter part of the secondary period.@ He, like 
many other geologists, supposed the whole period, since 
life began on earth, to be thousands of millions of years. 
But, since Darwin’s time, the number of supposed years 
‘has been greatly reduced, The maximum estimate of 
Lord Kelvin is one hundred million of years. The Dar- 
winists have no longer unlimited time for the working out 
of natural selection. And accordingly the later Darwinists 
have been compelled to abandon Darwin’s maxim, Watura 
not fucit saltum, and tomaintain that natural selection is 
not always slow and gradual. Le Conte speaks of many 
changes from one species to another, or the introduction 
of new species, as rapid and paroxysmal. 4 Dana declares 
“the transitions with rare exceptions abrupt.”’5 Even 
Fiske speaks of “immensely long periods of stability, alter- 
nating with relatively brief periods” of evolutionary change. 
Though this ardent Darwinist does not exactly say that 
nature jumps, he represents her, though for the most part 
as standing, yet occasionally as running quite fast. This 
representation partially coincides with Darwin’s view of 
only a few species undergoing change at one time, all the 
rest of the millions of species remaining stationary. Our 


‘1) Origin of Species, pp 275, 423 

\2) Origin of Species pp. 111-115. (3) p. 252 

(s). Geology, pp. 313, 334, 344 (5) Manual of Geology pp. 600, 602, 
503, 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 45 


suggestion is that in view of these facts the logical con- 
clusion must be that most of the species do not change at 
all. Wethink that, in connection with other facts, the 
proved and admitted stability of species for so long peri- 
ods of time establishes the doctrine of invariability for all 
time. We hold indeed that this doctrine is established by 
the stability of species during the period of human obser- 
vation and history. We areof course willing to grant a 
much longer period for the transmutation of one species 
into another, or the production of a new species from old 
organisins ; but we insist that five thousand years are long 
enough time for the deg7zning of the change, and also for 
the visible manifestation of it. But there is no such mani- 
festation, no evidence that the process of tranmutation has 
begun. 

There are variations to besure; varzetzes have sprung up, | 
but varieties or breeds are not species. To call varieties 
“incipient species” is to take for granted the very thing in 
dispute. Besides, many living species have existed more 
than 5000 years, some of them (according to the geologists) 
ten times or one hundred times that period. But here they 
are before our eyes without any indications of change, 
without the slightest approach to transmutation. Surely 
5,000, 10,000, or 50,000 years are long enough to produce 
some evidence of change. It takes about twenty-one years 
for a child to become a man. We do not expect a child to 
grow into aman in five years. Butif the child does not 
grow any at all in five years, it will never becomea man. 
We do not insist that horses, cows, elephants, kangaroos, 
pigeons, chickens, sharks and porpoises shall change into 
other species in 5,000, 10,000 or even 50,000 years; but we 
do insist that since, during these periods, they have made 
no progress toward transmutation, they never will be chan- 
ged into other species. Transmutation is confessedly a 
long road to travel. If species or individuals make no 
progress in 5,000 or 50,000 years, they never can finish the 
journey. 

We infer that the transmutation of species, if it were! 
actually taking place, would manifest itself within the 
historical period, just as changes in the inorganic world 
have manifested themselves within that period. It is true 
that it is claimed that changes take place in the inorganic 
world only imperceptibly, and this supposed fact has been 
employed to nullify the above argument against Darwinism. 


46 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


Prof. Jevons remarks that it might as well be argued that 
no geological changes are taking place, because no new 
mountain has risenin Great Britain within the memory 
of man.! This is not fair. We do not argue that trans- 
mutation does not take place, on the ground that it has 
not taken place within the historical period, but on the 
ground that within that period, and inthe species that have 
existed much longer than that period, there are no indica- 
tions of the slightest approach toward transmutation. But 
in the inorganic world there are visible indications of pro- 
gressive change. It is surprising that Prof. Jevons, and 
those who adopt his logic, assume the contrary. As a mat- 
ter of fact, geological changes have manifested themselves 
within the memory of man, to human eyes, and are mani- 
festing themselves at the present time. 

Reclus makes such statements as the following: The 
group of the Sandwich Islands is rising; a gradual sub- 
sidence may be noticed in the archipelagees of the South 
Seas; since the first European navigators visited these 
seas, several islands have disappeared, and others, such as 
White Sunday Island, have considerably diminished in 
size; New Zealand is rising in certain places so consider- 
ably that English colonists, who arrived there a few years 
ago, have been able to notice that the headlands increase 
in height, and that banks of rocks are gradually obstruct- 
ing the entrance of the ports; in ten years, the shores at 
Lyttleton have risen three feet; the New Hebrides, the 
Solomon Islands, the northern and western coasts of New 
Guinea, the numerous islands which compose the Sunda 
Archipelago, after having quite recently subsided, are all 
now rising; a portion of Australia is known to be experienc- 
ing a continuous movement of elevation at the estimated 
rate of fourinches a year. ? 

The following statements are made on the authority 
of Dr. John C. Draper: The Andes are gradually sinking ; 
Quito, as shown by actual measurements made at five dif- 
ferent times, from 1745 to 1870, has sunk 246 feet in 125 
years ; Pichincha, 218 feet in the same time and 425 feet in 
the last 26 years;and Antisana 165 feet in 64 years. 

Dana, the geologist, testifies as follows : “In 1822, the 
coast of Western South America for 1,200 mules along by 
Concepcion and Valparaiso, was shaken by an earthquake, 


(1) The Principles of Science pp. 437-8. 
(2) Reelus, The Harth, pp. 562-5. 
(3) Year Book of Nature and Popular Science for 1878, pp. 126-7. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 47 


and it has been estimated that the coast near Valparaiso 
was raised at the time 3 or 4 feet. In 1835, during another 
earthquake in the same region, there was an elevation, it 
is stated, of 4 or 5 feet at Talcahuano which was reduced 
after a while to 2 or 3 feet. In 1819, there was an earth- 
quake about the Delta of the Indus, and simultaneously an 
area of 2,000 square miles, in which the fort and village of 
Sindree were situated, sunk so as to become an inland sea, 
with the tops of the houses just out of the water.” !— 
‘Along the coasts of Sweden and Finland, on the Baltic, 
there is evidence that a gradual rising of the land is in slow 
progress. Marks placed along the rocks, by the Swedish 
goverment many years since, show that the change is 
slight at Stockholm, but increases northward, and is felt 
even at the North Cape, tooo miles from Stockholm. At 
Uddevalla the rate of elevation is equivalent to 3 or 4 feet 
in a century. 

“In Greenland for 600 miles from Disco Bay, near 69° 
N. to the frith of Igaliko, 60° 43’ N.,a slow sinking has been 
going on for atleast fourcenturies. Islands along the coast 
and old buildings have been submerged. 

“It is believed also that a sinking is in progress along 
the coast of New Jersey, Long Island, and Martha’s Vine- 
yard, and a rising in different parts of the coast-region be- 
tween Labrador and the Bay of Fundy. 

“The above cases illustrate movements by the cen- 
tury, or those oscillations which have taken place through 
the geological ages, raising and sinking the continents, or 
at least changing the waterline along the land.” 2? 

It is thus shown that the rising and sinking of moun- 
tains, islands, coasts and continents are matters of obser- 
vation and measurement. Many additional facts might be 
given ; but we deem the above presentation sufficient to 
remind the reader that changes in the inorganic world, es- 
pecially geological changes, are visible to human eyes, and 
that their progress in many cases are noted and measured. 
And what we claim is, that if the transmutation of species 
were actually taking place, the process and its progress 
would be observable, especially in the case of those living 
species which, as claimed, began to exist ten, twenty or 
fifty thousand yearsago. Buteven these, some of which 
passed through the Glacial period (which began 240,000 


(1) Teaxt- Book of Geology, p. 36}. 
(2) Dana’s ‘‘ Text- Book of Geology. p. 362. 


48 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


years ago and continued 160,000) show not a single trace 
of transmutation. 

The annual elevation and subsidence of islands and 
continents, mountains and plains are measured by feetand 
inches, and are duly announced and recorded ; but there is 
no perceptible approach to transmutation of species in 
5,000, 10,000, 100,000 years, and for much longer periods 
of time. 

In regard, then, to the immutability of species, the 
following points have been established, by the testimony 
mainly of Darwinists: 

1. It is admitted by Darwinists that some species have 
remained unchanged from the dawn of life to the present 
time—through all geologically recorded time—during mil- 
lions and millions of years. 

2. Itis admitted by Darwinists that at any one time, 
and at all times, only a few species are undergoing the 
process of transmutation. 

3. Itis admitted by Darwinists that at one time, and at 
all times, nearly all the species, millions in number, are 
stationary and make no progress whatever toward trans- 
mutation. 

4. Itis admitted by Darwinists that no sfeczes is ever 
changed into another, transmutation being restricted to 
some individuals or to some varieties. 

5. It is admitted by Darwinists that when some in- 
dividuals of a species are transmuted into another species, 
the former species continues to exist, though liable, like 
species in general, to become extinct. 

6. Itis admitted by Darwinists that all species, but a 
few, remain unchanged during the whole period of their 
existence, and finally become extinct without leaving any 
descendants. 

7. Itis admitted by Darwinists that, during the whole 
period of human observation and history, all the efforts of 
cultivators and fanciers, added to the effects of heredity, 
variation and environment, have not produced a single new 
species nor even a perceptible approach to transmutation. 

8. It is admitted by Darwinists that, among all the 
species that have survived from remotely ancient times, 
some of which are believed to have existed during tens of 
thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of 
years, not one, either in any of its individuals, or in any of 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 49 


its varieties, give any indications of progress toward trans- 
mutation. 

In closing this chapter we remind our readers that 
our argumentation is based on facts stated or admitted by 
the most distinguished Darwinists. It was Darwin him- 
self who declared that only a few species are undergoing a 
change at any one period, and that transmutation requires 
immense periods of time. It was Darwin who said that 
only a few species change; that all but a few species adie 
out without change and without descendants, and become 
utterly extinct.1 It was Huxley, thechampion of Darwin- 
ism, who declared, in 1862, that the ascertained fucts of 
paleontology negative the doctrine of progressive modifi- 
cation, and who declared, in 1882, that only among the 
higher vertebra (not among the vast majority of animals) 
does there seem to be a balance of evidence tn favor of 
evolution.2 it is Spencer who declares that even this 
small appearance of evidence ts probably illusive, and that 
the evidence usually supposed to prove progress ts untrust- 
worthy. We declares further that the gradation tn /fossil- 
7zed types may prove nothing more than successtve migra- 
tions.*® It is Ire Conte, an evolutionist, who declares that 
only the more plastic forms change tnto other species, and 
that nearly all species nre rigid and permanent. * 

If these gentlemen had tried they could scarcely have 
more effectively knocked the props from under the hypoth- 
esis of the variability of species. It was, in view of such 
facts as these, that, at the beginning of this chapter, we did 
what some will consider a very presumptuous thing ; that 
is, proposed to prove that species have been and are un- 
changeable. We trust that those who read the chapter 
will acquit us of presumption. 


(1) Origin of Species, pp. 401, 423. 

(2) Crit. and Adds, pp. 184, 186, 187. 
(2) Biology, vol. 1, p. 323. 

(4) Hvolution &e., p. 266-7. 


CHAPTER IV. 





THE FERTILITY OF CROSSED VARIETIES AND INFERTILITY 
OF CROSSED SPECIES. 





The argument is as follows: All the varieties that 
have sprung up naturally amoag plants and animals, and 
all the varieties that have been produced by the most care- 
ful, selective breeding, are fertile when crossed; and their 
progeny are fertile with one another. But crossed sfeczes 
are infertile; or, if fertile, their offspring are infertile. We 
have thus a test of species, since what are called varieties 
are fertile with one another and their progeny are fertile 
with one another, and as this is not true of crossed sfectes, 
it is evident that the most careful and persistent selective 
breeding, co-operating with natural selection, has not pro- 
duced a single genuine species. Men have cultivated pig- 
eons, dogs, horses and other anima's for thousands of years 
and joined their efforts to the powers of nature to secure 
as great changes as possible. But the resultant breeds of: 
pigeons are fertile when crossed, and their progeny are fer- 
tile also. This is true of the various breeds of dogs, horses 
and other animals. Hence, the result has been, not the 
production of a single species, but only of breeds or vari- 
eties. Much less could natural selection, unaided by hu- 
man effort and selective breeding, produce pure species. In 
view of such facts, Huxley declared: “Our acceptance of the 
Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one 
link in the chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as 
all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective 
breeding from a common stock are fertile, and their prog- 
eny are fertile with one another, that link will be want- 
ing.” 1 . 

From the discussion of this subject by Darwin and 
other writers we glean the following facts and principles: 

(1) Man’s Place in Nature, p. 127. 


COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC Smt 


1. The sterility of species, when inter-crossed, or of 
their offspring, is necessary to prevent the mixing of species 
and the confounding of organic forms. If species were ca- 
pable of crossing freely, the result would be the union of 
all species in the same country. In other words, all the 
species in the same country, horses, cows, sheep, dogs and 
swine, would be merged in one species, and what a species! ! 

2. The amalgamation of species is prevented in some 
cases by the sterility of the species themselves when 
crossed. In other cases, the species are fertile with one 
another, but their hybrid offspring is sterile. Thus the 
horse and the ass breed together, but their offspring, the 
mule, is sterile. Darwin remarks that to grant to species 
the power of producing hybrids, and then to stop further 
propagation by different degrees of sterility, “seems to be 
a strange arrangement.” 2 But there are many strange 
facts in this world of ours. 

3. The means by which sterility is produced are differ- 
ent. In some cases the sterility results from the death of 
the embryo ; in others, the embryo is not developed, for 
which no reason can be assigned. In some cases the re- 
productive organs of hybrids are defective ; but in some 
hybrids they are perfect in structure, and are only function- 
ally impotent. Thus while the sterility of hybrids is a 
clearly demonstrated fact and its necessity for the pre ven- 
tion ofthe amalgamation of species is easily recognized, 
the causes of it, or the means by which it is produced, are 
notunderstood. If sterility results from the death of the 
embryo, it is not known why the embryo dies. If it re- 
sults from. the non-development of the embryo, the 
cause of the non-development is unknown. If the re- 
productive organs of hybrids are defective, it cannot be 
ascertained why they are defective. If they are perfect 
in structure, but impotent functionally, the cause of the 
impotency isunknown. In many cases no cause whatever 
can be assigned for the sterility of hybrids. But it is none 
the less a fact; and its fizal cause, that is, its design or 
‘purpose, is readily recognized by all except those who say, 
“There is no God”; namely, the preservation of distinct 
species. Even Darwin admits that “species within the 
same country could hardly have kept distinct had they 
been capable of crossing freely.” 2 


(1) Origin of Species, p. 217. 
(2) Origin of Species, p. 230. 


52 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


4. This law of sterility is a general one; perhaps we 
would be justified in stating it to be wnzversal. We may 
at least say that this law, if not absolutely universal, is at 
least a very general, one. Darwin admitted “the high 
generality of some degree of sterility” as the result of the 
intercrossing of species. He further declared that sterility 
“is an extremely general result, but that it cannot, under 
our present state of knowledge, be considered as absolutely 
universal.” ! Both Kolreuter and Gartner, whom Darwin 
declared to be conscientious and admirable observers, 
make the law universal. Darwin himself admits that 
there are no known exceptions to the law of sterility so 
far as intercrossing and hybrids among anzma/s are con- 
cerned. “I doubt whether any case of a perfectly fertile 
hybrid animal can be considered as thoroughly well authen- 
ticated.” 2 And again: “I do not know of any thoroughly 
well-authenticated cases of perfectly fertile hybrid ani- 
mals.” % He claimed, however, such cases as existent 
among hybrid p/ants. But in many of these the decision 
of the question depends on the distinction between species 
and varieties. 

5. In regard to intercrossed varieties, the law of fer- 
tility prevails. There may be exceptional cases of steril1- 
ty, but fertility is general, if not quite absolutely universal. 

It is conceded then, that 'in the case of intercrossed 
varieties, the general law is fertility ; and that in the case 
of intercrossed species the general law is sterility. 

But the inter-crossed varieties that have resulted from 
selective breeding and the operation of the law of natural 
selection are fertile and their descendants also are fertile. 
Therefore in all these thousands of years in which human 
effort and skill ha.e united with the natural laws of varia- 
tion and heredity to produce changes in vital organisms, 
not a single new species has been brought into existence. 

When off the subject of natural selection, Darwin laid 
down the principle that even a slight degree of sterility of 
allied forms when crossed is accepted as proof that such 
forms belong to different species. “Even a slight degree 
of sterility between any two forms when first crossed, or 
in their offspring, is generally considered as a decisive test 
of their specific distinctness.” 4 Ie Conte too speaks of 

(1) Origin of Species, pp. 218, 225. 

(2) Origin of Species, p. 223. (3) p. 224, 

(4) Descent of Man, p. 166. . 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. £3 


“cross sterility as the constant character of species.” ! 
Thus, then, it is shown that the result of all the efforts of 
man in the way of selective breeding, added to the opera- 
tions of natural selection during thousands of years, has 
been the production only of breeds or varieties, and not of 
a single genuine species. 

In concluding this subject we remark as follows : 

1. God and nature do many a thing in several ways. 
Variety as well as uniformity, ‘variety in uniformity,” 
characterizes the work of God. Accordingly the confound- 
ing and wiping out of species are prevented in different 
ways: (1), by the mechanical impossibility of sexual union 
between different species ; (2), by antipathy or disinclina- 
tion ; (3), by the sterility of the inter-crossing species; (4), 
by the sterility of the resultant hybrids; (5), by the de- 
creasing fertility and dwindling away of their posterity. 

God’s resources are infinite. - He does many a thing in 
inany ways. 

2. The inter-crossing of the species,such as Darwin and 
his disciples speak of as rare and difficult, in fact never 
takes place in the course of nature, but is brought about by 
human effort, and only by careful and persistent human ef- 
fort. Nor have such efforts after all produced a new 
species. The very species with which man has had the 
most and the longest to do—camels, horses, asses, cows, 
sheep, goats, dogs, cats and swine, still retain their iden- 
tity as species. If any unnatural union, such as that of 
the horse and the ass, ever takes place in the state of na- 
ture, it has not been allowed to result in the amalgamation 
of species, or the production of a new species. Thus in the 
historical period, and during the geological ages, the bar- 
riers erected by God and nature have proved sufficient to 
keep the various species apart and distinct. Geology does 
not bring to light a single instance of the merging of two 
species into one. To be sure, only in the later age was man 
present with his attempts at artificial inter-crossing. But 
judging by the actual results in the historical age, we have 
no reason to believe that amalgamation would have taken 
place even if there had been away back in the Miocene age 
fanciers and experimenting scientists doing their level best 
to get up matrimonial alliances of camels with cows, bee- 
tles with butterflies, and snap-dragons with touch-me-nots. 

3. At most, the efforts of the scientific experimenters 

(1) Evolution and iis Relation to Religious Thoughts, p. 78. 


54 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


have produced only a few curious results among the lowest 
species of plants; and even there, when the artifical appli- 
ances are withdrawn, everything produces “after its kind.” 
No two species are combined, and no new species is pro- 
duced. | 

4. The question is not what a fancier or a scientific in- 
vestigator may occasionally accomplish by the artificial 
conjunction of two organisms of different species and of 
opposite sexes, or by the mixing of the pollen of flowers of 
different species; but the question is, can he start a new 
species ? Facts prove that where there is no tinkering of 
man with nature, species are not amalgamated; and that 
even where there is a tinkering with nature, resulting in 
the production of some half-and-half, anomalous creature, 
that creature and its posterity (if it has any) soon disap- 
pear, and the old species remain as before. Every such 
experiment is like throwing a pebble into the ocean. The 
pebble sinks and is seen no more; a bubble rises and the 
ever flowing tiderushes on. 


CHAPTER V. 


THE PALZONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT—BREAKS, CHASMS, 
ABRUPT TRANSITIONS, ABSENCE OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS. 





According to genuine Darwinism, there have been no 
sudden changes in evolution, and could be none. Darwin 
held that all changes are slowly effected 1, and that there 
has been and is no sudden introduction of species. He ad- 
mitted indeed that whole groups of allied species appear 
to have come in suddenly, bnt he declared the appearance 
to be false.2. According then to the Darwinian hypothesis, 
there must have been an interminable number of interme- 
diate forms, linking together all the species in each group 
by gradations as fine as our present varieties. This was 
expressly admitted by Darwin. Healso maintained, in ac- 
cordance with the principle that nature never jumps (Na- 
tura non facit saltum), that there is not, and never has 
been, any great difference between a species and the ones 
immediately preceding and succeeding it. 

But the facts are just the opposite of what the Dar- 
winian hypothesis demands. There are great differences 
between species related as predecessor and successor; nu- 
merous breaks and chasms in the series; abrupt transi- 
tions from lower to higher species. The intermediate 
forms are wanting. The geological record, at various 
points, indicates an entire absence of connecting links be- 
tween preceding and in-coming species. It reveals gaps 
and chasms in the series of successive species of plants 
and animals. Not only is there evidence of the absence of 
transitional forms in the past, but the absence of such 
forms now is an undeniable fact. According to Darwin- 
ism, there ought now to be many imperfectly formed spec- 

(1) Origin of Species, p. 401. 
(2) Origtn of Species, p. 402, 


56 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


ies. If Darwinism be true, there was, at one time, a race 
of animals half reptile and half bird, and a vast number of 
other animals at various stages of metamorphosis between 
reptiles and birds; and, if natural selection has not ceased 
to operate, there ought to be many such animals now. 

If all land animals are descended from water animals, 
when the fishes began to come out on land, before they en- 
tirely abandoned the water, they must have had very short 
and small legs. At first they had only nascent legs, which 
developed from generation to generation. There ought, 
however, to be fossils of fishes thus imperfectly metamor- 
phosed into land animals, and there ought also to be fishes 
at the present time growing legs preparatory to coming 
out on dry land, if natural selection has not shut up shop 
and quit business entirely. 

According to Darwinism, there must have been at one 
time a race of animals half bear and half whale, and be- 
sides a multitude of animals at various stages of transfor- 
mation between the bearand whale. Also there ought to 
be at the present time some bears partially changed into 
whales. It was the report of Mr. Hearne’s having seen 
black bears in North America swimming in the water to 
catch insects that furnished Darwin with the illustration 
showing how bears were transformed into whales. As 
black bears have adhered to the practice of swimming in 
the water to catch insects on down to the present time, 
some of them ought to be somewhat advanced toward 
whale-hood. Some of them by this time ought at least to 
be web-footed and to have flattened and forked tails. 

What is true of bears is true of other species. If 
horses, cows, camels, sheep, goats, swine, lions, tigers, hy- 
enas, gorillas and other living species, have existed 100,000, 
50,000, or even 10,000 years, there ought to be among them 
individuals partially metamorphosed into other species. 
In short, if Darwinism be true, there ought to be every- 
where examples of partial transformation; aquatic ani- 
mals partially turned into land animals; reptiles partially 
turned into birds; quadrupeds partially turned into bipeds; 
and, as examples of evolution going backward, birds par- 
tially turned into snakes, and land animals partially turned 
into aquatic animals. 

There are no such imperfectly formed animals in ex- 
istence, or if they exist they have not been discovered. 
The notion that they exist, but have escaped the knowledge 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 57 


of scientists, is absurd. Norarethe fossil remains of such 
animals found in the strata of the earth, a fact that indi- 
cates the absence of intermediate forms in all past time. 

Besides all this, there are numerous breaks or chasms 
in the series of successive species. Time and again spec- 
ies have abruptly disappeared. ‘Time and again have spec- 
ies appeared suddenly, and always full formed. These 
facts are indisputable and are admitted on all hands. Dar- 
win Says, “Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, 
some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in vari- 
ous degrees.” | Dana declares, as follows: ‘The transi- 
tions between species, genera, tribes, etc., in geological his- 
tory, are, with rare exceptions, abrupt.’ 2. Spencer speaks 
of “breaks,” “great blanks,” ‘“‘wide gaps,” “great gaps.” in 
the series of fossils. ? Ie Conte speaks of ‘“‘gaps,” “breaks,” 
even of ‘‘paroxysms of mote rapid movement in evolution.” 4 

It may be proper to consider some of the breaks which 
paleontology brings to view. 

I. One of the breaks, chasm we may call it, is between 
living organic matter and non-living matter. TAfe proceeds 
from life. The scientists in general testify that sponta- 
neous generation does not’as a matter of fact take place. 
Agassiz, Huxley, Tyndall, Beale, Lord Kelvin, Virchow, 
Dana, Gray, and many more of the most distinguished 
scientists of the age, as is well known, have declared that 
the evidence derived from observation and experiment 
proves that, as a matter of fact, life always proceeds from 
antecedent life. But at one time there was no life on earth 
or in it, as is demonstrated by the fact of the prevalence of 
intense heat. The existence of the igneous, azoic rocks is 
proof of the prevalence of intense heat and of the absence 
of vegetable and animal life. It is indeed possible that 
there were vegetables and animals on earth before the azoic 
rocks were formed, and that all fossils were destroyed out 
of these rocks by the prevalent heat. But if so, all living 
species must also have been destroyed. For when the 
earth was a molten mass, a red-hot ball, life upon it and in 
it was impossible. There was then a time when there was 
no life on earth. But life exists on earth now. Therefore 
life on earth degan. But how did it begin? And why did 

(1) Descent of Man, p. 156. 
(2) Manual of Geology, p. 600. 


(3) Lllustrations of Universal Progress, pp. 355-61. 
(4) Geology, p. 344. 


58 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


it begin ? Evolution does not account for the beginning of 
life. For life not being in non-living matter could not 
evolve or be evolved from it. Involution must precede ev- 
olution. The problem is how dead matter, after the earth 
cooled, became living matter. How and whence did life 
enter some non-living form, or forms, and thus make evo- 
lution possible? 

It is a suggestive fact that Lord Kelvin (Sir W. Thomp- 
son) at one time proposed and advocated the hypothesis 
that life was brought to our globe by a meteoric stone. 
But how did the meteoric stone come to possess life? If 
the meteoric stone and the living organism which it brought 
to the earth, came from a distant planet, the question arises 
how did life come to that distant planet? The beginning 
of life on a distant planet is a problem as unsolvable by 
science as is the beginning of life on earth. 

Quite a number of scientists have attempted to bridge 
the chasm between living matter and non-living matter by 
means of spontaneous generation. Heckel suggested that 
life began with what he calls Protococcus, a species of Algze 
(sea-weed) so minute that several hundred thousands of 
them occupy a space no larger than a pin’s head. These 
he claimed to be the most ancient of all vegetable Monera, 
and he affirmed that they arose by spontaneous genera- 
tion in the beginning of the Laurentian period. ! 

Huxley, though he admitted that Biogenesis (the the- 
ory that life proceeds only from antecedent life) is victori- 
ous along the whole line of investigation, still clung to the 
notion “of the evolution of living protoplasm from not 
living matter’ some time in the remote past; and he in- 
dulged in the “expectation” that Abiogenesis (spontaneous 
generation) would be established as a scientific fact. 2 

Spencer objects to the doctrine of spontaneous gene- 
ration, but he objects to the zame rather than to the /hing. 
He is willing to grant that ‘‘the evolution of life in its low- 
est forms may go on under existing cosmical conditions.” 
But he believes ‘it more likely that the formation of such 
matter and such forms took place at a time when the heat 
of the earth’s surface was falling through those ranges of 
temperature at which the higher organic compounds are 
unstable.” He conceived that the moulding of such organ- 
ic types commenced with portions of protoplasm more 


(1) Atstory of Creation, Vol. 2, 80-8 
(2) Lay ae hae p. 366-7. nee % 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY 59 


minute and indefinite than the lowest Rhizopods.! Thus 
Spencer really affirms the dogma of spontaneous genera- 
tion, the production of lite from non-living matter, or the 
origination of life by material and natural forces. 

Le Conte condemns Dr. Bastain and Prof. Heckel, to- 
gether with the anti-evolutionists, for maintaining that 
spontaneous generation and evolution must stand or fall 
together. He even says that the conditions necessary to 
spontaneous generation are zow, not only unreproducible, 
but unimaginable; and that if life were now extinguished 
from the earth, it could not be rekindled by any natural 
process known to us. He, however, supposes, and evi- 
dently feels that he is under the necessity of supposing, 
that abiogenesis or spontaneous generation did once occur, 
and only ozce, and that it will never occur again.2 The 
dogma of spontaneous generation, as propounded by Le 
Conte and some other evolutionists, reminds us of a little 
boy that pleads to be allowed to do something naughty, 
and asks to beallowed to do it just once, only once, and 
promises never, never to do it again. 

Fiske thinks the advocates of spontaneous generation 
have not made out their case, but notwithstanding indi- 
cates his own acceptance of it. His hypothesis is that life 
originated from the cooling of the earth and in the juxta- 
position of carbonic acid, ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen 
and oxygen. He speaks of ‘the association of vital proper- 
ties with the enormously-complex chemical compound 
called protoplasm as an unsolved myster:,” but at the 
same time speaks quite confidently of “the mode in which 
protoplasm must have arisen.’ 

Such is a specimen of the views propounded by lead- 
ing Darwinians concerning the break between living and 
non-living matter. They almost unanimously attempt to 
bridge the chasm with some form or other of the unscien- 
tific dogma of spontaneous generation—a dogma which is 
based on the idea that the dead can produce the living and 
that an effect can exist without an adequate cause. The 
plea that life was evolved only once, and a very long time 
ago, and at a time when the powers of nature were much 
greater than now, merely indicates that those who offer it 
are not fully satisfied with their own views and are ready 

(1) Biology, Vol. 1 pp. 480-1. 

(2) Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought, pp. 15-16 

(3) Cosmic Philos. Vol. 1, pp. 430-434. wa ees ; 


60 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


to shrink from them. Ifthe production of life from non- 
living matter without the intervention of God’s creative 
power, is zof an effect without an adequate cause, then 
may such effects take place ten thousand times, ten mil- 
lion times, or an indefinite number of times. But if the 
production of life from non-living matter, without the in- 
tervention of God’s creative power, is an effect without an 
adequate cause, then may such effects take place an indefi- 
nite number of times. Nor does it help the matter to say 
that the powers of nature have been weakened, and that 
the maxims, omne vivum ex vivo, and, ex nthilo nihil fit, are 
applicable indeed to our degenerate and decrepit times, 
but not to the time when nature was young and vigorous. 
For if so, what becomes of the doctrine of the conservation 
of forces? Whither has gone the lost power of nature? 

Darwinism, as taught by Darwin, at least as first 
taught by him, steers entirely clear of these breakers. In 
his first and greatest work, he speaks of “the progenitors 
of innumerable extinct and living descendants” as being 
created. We makes even the tautological declaration that 
“this first creature was created.’ | He speaks of “one pri- 
mordial form into which life was first breathed.” 2 He speaks 
of “the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.” * He 
argues for a s7zgle center, and against mwu/tzple centers, of 
creation. 4 These words and phrases ramove all difficulty 
in regard to the initial process of evolution. For granted 
that there is a Creator, and a first creature, and the laws of 
the Creator, and a primordial form with life breathed into 
it, certainly evolution could have a fair start. But Darwin, 
though he did not formally repudiate these views and de- 
clarations, seems not to have adhered to them; and many 
of his followers are not willing to grant anything for 
evolution to begin to work on but lifeless matter. They 
leave the chasm between non-living and living matter 
without a bridge. 

2. A second break, a chasm indeed, is found between 
man and the brutes. 

On this point we need do little more than quote the 
admission of Darwin, as follows: ‘The great break in the 
organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which 
cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, 
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief 

(1) Origin of Species, p. 422. 

(2) p. 419. (3) Pp. 423 (4) Pp. 307, 310. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 61 


that man is descended from some lower animal.” ! 

Let it be observed that it is admitted in the above 
quoted declaration that the dreak is great and that it can. 
not be bridged over. We further remark as follows : 

(1.) The reply of Darwin, unlike his writings in general, 
is weak. He first says that this objection will not appear 
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe 
in the general principle of evolution. 2 This statement we 
admit to be correct. Of course the objection will not ap- 
pear to be of much weight to any one who has already 
made up his mind to disregard it. Darwin’s second reply 
is, that breaks are quite common—‘Breaks often occur in 
all parts of the series.” This fact only strengthens the ob- 
jection. And the truth is that it took Darwin some time to 
throw off the influence of this very objection. For some 
time it was in his estimation one of the grave objections, 
the thought of which made him s/agger, as he himself 
says. 3 

(2.) We need to be on our guard against the pernicious, 
we might almost say, demoralizing, influence from the 
classification made of man by the natural scientists. In 
classifying him, they recognize him only as a corporeal 
being, ignoring him almost entirely as an intellectual, 
moral and religious being. Asa Vertebrate, he is classed 
with fishes, snakes, birds and beasts. As a Mammal, he 
is classed with rats, dogs, mice, monkeys, elephants, 
whales and kangaroos. As a Placental, he is classed with 
horses, cows, asses and hogs. But asto man’s intellectual, 
moral, spiritual and immortalnature, by which he is liken- 
ed to God and the angels, natural science is for the most 
part dumb. It has neither eye, nor ear, nor voice, nor 
tongue, nor thought, for man’s greatest and noblest quali- 
ties. So it classes him with the brutes, even with the low- 
est of them. 

(3.) Yet the gulf between man and the lower animals 
has not been entirely unnoticed by the professors of na- 
tural science. Even Huxley in a toot-note (in a /oot-note, 
mark ye) incidentally speaks of ‘the immeasurable and 
practically infinite divergence of the Human from the 
Simian stirps.” 4 The difference between man, in the total- 
ity of his being, and an ape has been declared greater than 
the difference between an ape anda mushroom. ® The state- 

(1) Descent of Man, p. 156. 


(2) Origin of Species, p. 181. (3) p. 154. 
(4) Man’s Place in Nature, p. 122. (5) Mivari, 


62 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


ment is true, if we compare the smartest and best trained 
ape, not with the lowest and most degraded of mankind, 
but with the civilized man. The gap exists between the 


ape and the mushroom and between the man and the ape. . 


But there are no intermediate species to fill the latter gap, 
no bridge spanning the chasm. The missing link in the 
form of a speechless, ape-like man, or in the fossil remains 
of such a creature, has not been found. 
3. A third break is found in ¢he earliest geological age. 
In proof, we present the testimony of Agassiz, who 
though not a Darwinist, is surely a competent witness as 
to matters of fact. He says, “Every class among Radiates, 
Mollusks and Articulates are known to have been repre- 
sented in those earliest days, with the exception of the 
Acalephs and Insects only.” And again, “Fishes exist 
wherever Radiates, Mollusks and Articulata are found to- 
gether.” Once more, “It is proved beyond doubt that 
Radiata, Mollusca, and Articulata are everywhere found 
together in the oldest geological formations, and that very 
early Vertebrata are associated with them, to continue to- 
gether through all geological ages to the present time.’ ? 
Such is Agassiz’s testimony. Since his time, both 
Acalephs and Insects, have been found in the Silurian. 
But we call attention especially to the fact, as stated by 
Agassiz, that not only Articulata, but Vertebrata, animals 
of the highest branch of the animal kingdom, existed in 
the earliest geological age, their remains being foundin the 
lowest fossiliferous strata. This fact is copiously admitted 
by Prof. Romanes. In speaking of things which, as an 
evolutionist, he would not have expected, he says, that 
“animals of the highest sub-kingdom are proved to have 
abounded in the very lowest strata where there is good 
evidence of there having been any forms of life at all.” 
Again, after stating a number of facts, he says, “These 
facts render it practically certain that some members of 
this very highest class of the highest sub-kingdom must 
have existed far back in the Primaries.’ 2 These facts, 
proved and admitted, are very significant. Here we find 
Vertebrata away down in strata, where only Radiata—Pro- 
tozoa—Rhizopods, according to evolution, ought to be 
found—members of the highest branch of the animal 
kingdom in the very lowest strata where life is proved to 


(1) Essay on Classification, p. 24. 
(2) Darwin and after Darwin, Vol. 1, pp. 432-3. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 63 


have existed at all. Thus at the very beginning of the 
Paleeozoic age there is proved to have been aleap from the 
lowest to the highest forms of animal existence. 

4. Another break is found in the Devonian age. 

Radiates, Mollusks, Articulates and Vertebrates all 
existed together. But among the last mentioned, there 
was a sudden advance in form and structure. The waters 
swarmed with fishes, and never since have fishes been 
more abundant, larger, or better armed. Some of these 
Devonian fishes were from 15 to 30 feet long, with heads 
six feet across, and eyeballs three inches in diameter. ! 

How is this sudden advance in Vertebrate life account- 
ed for by thorough-going evolutionists? Many of them 
fall back on the hypothesis of the imperfection of the geo- 
logical record, as suggested by Darwin. They suppose 
that all the gaps and breaks were filled with intermediate 
species, but that, for some unknown cause, the strata con- 
tain no remains of such intermediate species. In the case 
of the Devonian Vertebrates, Prof. Le Conte frankly admits 
that there was no break by geological unconformity and 
therefore no notable loss of record. He therefore admits 
that the gap in this case can be accounted for only by sup- 
posing “paroxrysms of more rapid movement in evolution.’ 
This idea of pfaroxysms of rapid evolution is contrary to 
Darwinism as taught by Darwin. But Le Conte is con- 
strained to adopt this hypothesis in order to avoid the 
conclusion that the Devonian fishes came in without pro- 
genitors. 

5. Another of the frequent breaks occurred i in the Ter- 
tiary age. 

Without calling attention to particular ace we will 
refer to some authorities in support of the above proposi- 
tion. Dana declares the break in the early Tertiary to be 
“truly great, even astounding.” 3? Je Conte admits the ap- 
pearances of sudden and great changes in the fauna of 
this age, and says that the fact must be accounted for, if 
at all, not by a gap in the geological record, but by the 
hypothesis of ‘“¢zmes of rapid evolution.” 4 

6. The Quaternary is recognized as revolutionary and 
as characterized by gaps and breaks. These are accounted 

(1) Le Conte,Geology, p. 334-343. Dana, Text Book of Geology 


PP 237-240. 
(2) Geology, p. 344. 
(8) Manual of Geology, p. 602. 
(4) Geology, p. 522. 


64 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


for usually by geological unconformity and lost records. 

Now all these gaps and breaks, and others which we 
have not expressly mentioned, are admitted by evolution- 
ists, in this sense that the geological record does seem to 
indicate their reality. Most evolutionists, however, main- 
tain that it ov/y seems to do so, and that the gaps and breaks 
exist only in the geological record. Darwin, as we have 
mentioned, said that species often appear to come in sud- 
denly, but that they fa/sely appear to do so. He charged 
this false appearance upon the imperfection of the geologi- 
cal record, and in this he has been followed by nearly all 
the Darwinians. 

We remark as follows: 

1. This hypothesis of the imperfection of the geological 
record was devised and brought forward in order to defend 
the Darwinian hypothesis of the slow formation of species 
by natural selection. Doubtless the main argument for 
the imperfection of the geological record is the fact, 
that this hypothesis cannot be maintained without it. 
Thus it is a mere assumption to meet a difficulty. To the 
evolutionist it seems logical and justifiable, because it is 
essential to the maintainance of an opinion which he has 
antecedently accepted. Heis ready to follow Darwin in 
believing the geological record to be imperfect, as Darwin 
himself said, “‘to the degree I require.” 

2. At many of the breaks in the organic series fhere 7s 
no evidence at all of the imperfection of the geological 
record. 

At the appearance of the Devonian fish; at the appear- 
ance of monkeys in the Miocene; at the appearance of the 
huge monsters of the Quaternary ; at the appearance of 
man; at the sudden disappearance of species at various 
times without descendants—at none of these gaps and 
breaks is there a scintilla of evidence that intervening 
strata have been removed, or that their fossils have been 
destroyed. But the hypothesis of the slow formation of 
species by natural selection requires that these breaks and 
chasms shall be filled, and the claimed imperfection of the 
geological record gives the evolutionist an opportunity to 
fill them by zmagznation. 

3. An insuperable objection to this hypothesis of the 
imperfection of the geological record lies in the fact, that 
ifthe claimed imperfection exists, it is a very one-sided 
affair. The transitional forms, the partially developed 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TFLEOLOGY. 65 


species have all perished and their fossils, if any existed, 
have been destroyed, and fossils only of completely formed 
species have been preserved. Why this discrimination ? 
Is nature so hostile to intermediate forms and partially 
formed species that she hunts outand destroys their fos- 
sils? It used to be said that nature abhors a vaccuum; and 
when it was found that water would rise to the height of 
32 feet in an exhausted air-tight tube, it was said nature 
abhors a vaccuum up to the height of 32 feet. According to 
Darwinism, nature must hate transitional forms—her hate 
extending even to their fossils. 

4. Thereis a further consideration : 

According to Darwinism there must have been large 
and well-formed fish, a little inferior to the Ganoids, but 
preceding them, in the Devonian age. But why are the re- 
mains ofthese predecessors of the Ganoids not found? 
The fossils of smaller and feebler animals, both earlier, 
contemporary and later, have been found. Why not these? 
Why are the remains of the immediate predecessors and 
successors of the huge animals of the Miocene not found ? 
The remains of many species of animals, much smaller and 
feebler, of animals antecedent, contemporary and subse- 
quent have been found. Also, why is there agap between 
man and his nearest of kin among the lower animals ? Dar- 
win has said, ‘““The-great break in the organic chain be- 
tween man and his nearest allies cannot be bridged over.”! 
But why.? Fossil men have been found and fossil monk- 
eys have been found. Ifthere had been an intermediate 
species, animals perhaps less in size than men, but larger 
and stronger than most of the monkeys, wou!d not some of 
their fossilized remains have been found ? 

5. Itis admitted by some of the ablest geologists, in- 
cluding some evolutionists, that the gaps and breaks are 
not confined to the geological record, but existed in the 
series of successive species. We have shown that Le Conte 
repeatedly admits that there are, in the organic chain, gaps 
and breaks which he accounts for by what he calls parox- 
ysms and rapid movements in evolution. Dana declares that 
the transitions between species, genera and tribes in geologi- 
cal history are, with rare exceptions, adrupf. He affirms 
“the abruptness of transition to be astounding.” ! 

The admissions of these able and accomplished geolo- 


(1) Descent of Man, p 156. 
Manual of Geology, pp. 600, 602, 


66 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


gists, (evolutionists as they are,) are decidedly unfavorable 
to the Darwinian theory of the formation of species by 
slight modifications through long periods of time, and also 
to the Darwinian notion of the extreme imperfection of the 
geological record. 

', 6. There are three ways in which the abrupt transitions 
called gaps, breaks and chasms in the vital succession of 
the world, are accounted for by evolutionists. (1), imper- 
fection of the geological record; (2), paroxysms of rapid 
evolution ; and (3), the expectation that the fossil remains 
of intermediate species will yet be found in the earth’s 
strata. 

In regard to the last it may be said that those who 
adopt this mode of accounting for breaks in the organic 
chain, seem to be endeavoring to imitate the Bible charac- 
ters who walked by faith, and not by sight. But as we 
think that disbeliefin the Darwinian hypothesis is no im- 
peachment of the veracity of God or man, we deem it rea- 
sonable and right to wait until the fossils of the interme- 
diate and imperfectly formed species shall have been ac- 
tually discovered, and also some half-formed species, or 
some animals among earth’s living fauna partially trans- 
muted into a new species, shall have been pointed out to 
us, before we give in our adhesion to Darwinism. 


CHAPTER VI. 


THE FAILURE OF DARWINISM AS AN EXPLANATORY HY= 
POTHESIS. 


It is claimed in behalf of Darwinism that it explains 
many things that otherwise are inexplicable. Darwin 
himself gave, asthe main reason for believing in his own 
hypothesis, that ‘it collects under one head of view and 
gives a rational explanation of many apparently indepen- 
dent classes of facts.” | Again: “I cannot believe that, if 
‘false, it would explain so many whole classes of facts, 
which, if Iam in my senses, it seems to explain.” 2 

Heckel claims, in behalf of Darwinism, that ‘all bio- 
logical facts are explicable only through it, and that with- 
out itthey remain unintelligible miracles.” 3 — 

Spencer claims that “the power of this hypothesis to 
explain so many phenomena is strong evidence of its 
. truth,’ 4 though of course he avoids the extravagance of 
Heeckel. This claim is also put forward by Huxley, Ro- 
manes, Le Conte, Fiske, and by Darwinists in general. 

We do not admit this claim. We maintain that Dar- 
winism isa failureas it respects the explanation of phe- 
nomena, and therefore lacks the main character even of a 
good hypothesis. 

1. Heredity and variation. Darwin himself admitted 
our profound ignorance of these laws, the very ones on 
which natural selection is founded. Among his declara- 
tions are the following: “Our ignorance of the laws of 
variation is profound. Not in one case out of a hundred 
can we pretend to assign any reason why this or that differs 
more or less from the same part in the parents.” ‘The 
laws governing inheritance are quite unknown.” ® Heeckel, 

(1) Variation of Plants and Animals vol. p. 14. 
(2) Darwin’s Life and Letters, vol. 2, p. 6. (3) Hist. of Creation, 
Vote prt23;2.(4) Btols Vol.1,-p. 291. 
(5) Ortgin of Spectes, pp. 19, 150. 


68 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


though he boastfully claims that Darwinism has put us in 
a position to demonstrate an active cause for all the known 
morphological phenomena in the animal and vegetable 
kingdoms, is nevertheless constrained to admit that Adapta- 
tion and Inheritance are two mysterious properties, of 
which there is no prospect of an explanation in the near 
future.! Prof. Jevons, of College University, London, a 
distinguished Darwinist, puts the case thus: ‘Any one of 
Mr. Darwin’s books admirable though they all are, consists 
but in the setting forth ofa multitude of indeterminate 
problems.” 2 , 

It is thus conceded that Darwinism can assign no 
cause either for heredity or variation, but continually deals 
with them without attempting an explanation. 

2. Darwinism also finds itselfunable to account for the 
sterutty of intercrossed species and the fertility of intercrossed 
varieties. Darwinists admit these facts in whole or in 
part, argue about them and try to show that they are not 
incompatible with the Darwinian hypothesis. But they 
cannot assign the cause or causes of these facts. It is 
quite evident that the infertility of hybrids is essential to 
the preservation of distinct species and does actually keep 
them distinct. And itis the belief of many that. this in- 
fertility of hybrids was destgned by the Maker and Ruler 
of the uniyerse to accomplish this very purpose. But the 
thorough-going Darwinists, many of them at least, are 
quite shy of final causes and all teleological views, and thus 
accept the sterility of intercrossed species and the fertility 
of intercrossed varieties as mysterious facts without cause 
or reason. 

3. The existence and equilibrium of the sexes. ‘These 
phenomena, according to Darwinism, are insoluble enigmas. 
It assigns no cause, and can assign no cause whatever, for 
_ them. Many of us are indeed ready to say that the two 
sexes existin order that species may be propagated and 
preserved. But this is teleology. Such expressions sug- 
gest cause indeed, but only fiva/ cause, 7. e., design or pur- 
pose. But Darwinism, as generally construed, will have 
nothing to do with final causes; perhaps it does not posi- 
tively condemn teleological ideas, but gives them the go-by. 
Now there are no kxowz secondary causes for the existence 
of the two sexes among mankind and the lower animals. 

(1) Hist. of Creation, Vol. 1, p. 32. (2) Principles of Science, 
p. 764. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 69 


Secondary causes are merely the means by which effects 
are produced. There are undoubtedly secondary causes 
for the existence of the sexes—means by which their con- 
tinued existence is maintained. But these secondary causes 
are altogether unknown. 
This may be said also of the equilibrium of the sexes. 
It is very desirable that it should be preserved; and it is 
preserved both among mankind and the lower animals. 
Statistics indeed seem to show that among mankind the 
number of male infants exceeds the number of females. 
But theexcess is not more than enough to compensate for 
the greater mortality among men than among women, 
caused by the more dangerous pursuits of the former. But 
the equality of the sexes in point of numbers is not under 
human control. Neither is the determination of sex a mat- 
terofhuman choice and regulation. If it were so, the equilt- 
brium of the sexes would not likely be preserved. But it 
is preserved and preserved too in a way altogether unknown 
to men. Doubtless secondary causes or means are em- 
ployed to accomplish this purpose. It is certainly very im-_ 
probable that the Great First Cause, the Inscrutable Power 
(as spoken of by Spencer) directly intervenes to determine 
the sex of every embryo and to maintain the equality of 
the sexes. God does this by secondary causes, which He 
has kept concealed from men, possibly lest they should 
attempt totake the control of these matters into their own 
hands. Here is acase in regard to which Darwinism is 
struck dumb. It knows not the cause or causes of sex 
or of the equilibrium of the sexes. It cannot even take 
the ground that they have afiza/cause, for that involves 
teleology, the doctrine of design. Hence Darwinism, ex- 
cept it be of that sort with which Darwin at first set out 
(expressly recognizing God as Creator and Ruler), cannot 
assign any cause, either secondary or final, to such pheno- 
mena as the existence of the sexes and their equilibrium, 
but must regard and treat them as unaccountable enigmas. 
4. The vast differences that are found between species in 
respect to degrees of fertility. Asa generalrule, small and 
weak animals breed rapidly ; large and strong animals slow- 
ly. The whale brings forth but one or two at a time: the 
smaller fishes breed by hundreds, by thousands and even 
by millions. The elephant brings forth but one ata time, 
and only once in about three years. Its period of gesta- 
tion, according to Sir Samuel Baker, is twenty-two months 


70 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


and some days.! The ratand the mouse breed each sey- 
eral times a year, the litter numbering from seven to 
twelve. The small birds, as the wrens and tits, have each 
from ten to fifteen young, and often two broods in a year. 
The golden eagle has annually but two eggs, and sometimes 
only one. 

; The vegetable kingdom furnishes similar phenomena. 
A fungus produces more spores in one night than an oak 
tree produces acornsina century. During the time which 
a cocoanut tree takes to get ready to bear fruit, a wheat 
plant will have enough of descendants, if they all lived 
and multiplied, to fill the earth. 

The smallest, most helpless, most easily destroyed 
creatures are the most prolific. The queen-ant ofthe Afri- 
can Termites lays 80,000 eggs in 24 hours.. The gordius 
(hair-worm) lays 8,000,000 in less than a day. The para- 
mecium will produce by fissure 268 millions in one month. 
Another animalcule ‘is calculated to generate 170 billions 
in four days.” 2 | 

Now it is easy in one way to assign a reason for these 
facts. We can very readily see and say that small and 
weak animals should breed rapidly, and that large and 
strong animals, especially carnivorous ones, should breed 
slowly. Rats and mice, ifthey bred no faster than horses 
and cows, would soon become extinct. Horses and cows, 
ifthey increased as fast as most of the smaller animals, 
would starve to death. The whales, if they propagated as 
rapidly as do many of the fishes, would soon crowd the 
ocean and block shipsin their course. Things are asthey 
should be. Evidently the increase of the various species 
is soregulated as to preserve their equilibrium. Whoever 
believes there is aGod in heaven, and reasons in accord- 
ance with logic and commou sense, will certainly conclude, 
that the more rapid increase of the smaller aud weaker 
animals, and the slower increase of the largerand stronger, 
are designed to prevent the extinction of the one class, and 
the too great predominance ofthe other. 

But, according to Darwinism, these phenomena are un- 
accountable. There is no known cause of the great fertili- 
ty of small and weak animals, and no known cause of the 
slow increase of large and strong ones. The Darwinist 

(1) Wild Beasts and their Ways, p. 70. 

(2) Many of these facts are taken from Spencer’s Biology, 

Vol. 2, p. 423-459. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. “Gh 


may recognize it as a fortunate thing indeed that the former 
class of animals are very prolific, but he sees no reason 
why they actually are so. He may recognize the slow in- 
crease of the latter class as another fortunate thing, but it 
also is tohim anenigma. If great fertility is an advantage 
the larger and stronger animals are deprived of it; if slow 
increase is an advantage, the small and weak animals are 
deprived of it. But whether advantageous or disadvan- 
tageous, Darwinism can only accept these phenomena, as 
it accepts variation and heredity, i. e., as existent facts with 
out any known reason for their existence. 

5. Another example may be drawn from some apparent 
exceptions to the rule of fertility as mentioned above. The 
codfish is five feet longand weighs 100 pounds, yet it pro- 
duces a vast number of eggs. Spencer says it “spawns 
a mullion at once.’”’ ! Holder says : “Each female deposits 
-about 9,300,000 eggs.” 4 According to either statement, 
the cod is vastly more prolific than most animals of its 
size, and than some ofthe smaller fishes. But the eggs 
and the young are without protection and most of them 
perish. The eggs rise to the surface and float, being 
hatched in about 20 days. But the most of them are de- 
voured before they are hatched, and many of them after- 
ward. After all, the cod does not increase more rapidly 
than other animals of the same size. Onthe other hand 
the arius, a fish only six or seven inches long, produces 
only 10 or 12 eggs; but they are as large as marbles, and 
are carefully protected by both the female and male. They 
are carried first by the motherin a fold of the skin, and 
later the male carries them in his mouth. *? The salmon are 
smaller than the cod, yet produce a less number of eggs. 
But they exercise much care for their safety. They ascend 
rivers in the breeding season, leaping water-falls with 
great skilland deposit theireggsinnests. In timethe young 
salmon leave the fresh water, descending the rivers to the 
ocean. So too the stickleback, though asmall fish, pro- 
duces comparatively few eggs. But the sticklebacks are 
nest-builders and are “noted for their care of young.” ° The 
- hippocampus (pipe-fish) also produces comparatively few 
eggs, but it very carefully protects its eggs andits young, 
the eggs being carried by the male in a caudal pouch, In 

(1) Biology, Vol. 2, p. 433. 


(2) Elements of Zoology, p. 187. 
(3) Holder, Elements of Zoology, p. 169, 


72 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


time he forces the young out by pressing the pouch 
against a stone. ! 

The ostrich, though much the largest of birds, lays as 
many as I5 or 20 eggs, some say about 30.2 It at least 
produces more eggs than the eagle or the hawk, or than 
the oriole or sparrow, But the ostrich is careless of its 
eggs andits young. Itsnest is merely a hollow place in 
the sand. The eggs are left to the heat of the sun by day, 
and are covered by the male ostrich at night. The female 
does not brood at all. As this bird is polygamous many 
of the nests are neglected by night as well as by day. The 
eggs in the outer row are often eaten by the old and young 
birds. Several females lay eggs in one nest, so that the 
number varies from 20 to 4o, and even to 50, or sometimes 
to 70 or 80. Of course, in such cases, many of the eggs 
are not hatched. Darwin says: ‘In one day’s hunting I 
picked up no less than twenty lost and wasted eggs.” 3 
These were scattered away from thenests.4 There is one 
species of the ostrich, the emus, in which the male not 
only performs the duty of incubation, but has to defend 
the young from their mother; “for as soon as she catches 
sight of her progeny she becomes violently agitated and, 
notwithstanding the resistence of the father, appears to use 
her utmost endeavors to destroy them.’ *® Many facts 
demonstrate the accuracy of the description of the ostrich 
presented in the book of Job: “which leaveth her eggs in 
the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth 
that the foot may crush them, or thatthe wild beast may 
break them. She is hardened against her own offspring, 
as though they were not hers; her labor isin vain with- 
out fear, because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither 
hath he imparted to her understanding.” 6 

Though the ostrich is prolific in eggs, her deficiency 
in the maternal instinct, and lack of care for her eggs and 
her young, are such that the species does not increase dis- 
proportionately fast. The abundarce of eggs and the 
negligence in hatching and rearing counter-balance one 
another. 

The bat does not breed as rapidly as other animals of 


(1) Holder, Elements of Zoology, p. 19). 
(2) Packard’s Zoology, P- 208. 

(3) Oigin of Species. p. 194. 

(4) Voyage ofa Naturalist, vo). 1, p. 116. 

(5) Descent of Man, p. 178. 

(6. The Book of Job, 39 : 14-17. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. FRE 


the same size. It produces but one at a time, like the 
horse, cow, lion, tiger, elephant, and most of the larger an- 
imals. It does not need to breed rapidly. For it remains 
in concealment during the day, hybernates in winter, and 
the owl is about the only enemy it has to fear. It is as 
safe as most of the larger animals, and it breeds no faster 
than they. 

Here, then, is another class of facts which Darwinism 
has no power to explain. It assigns no cause for the slow 
increase of the large and strong animals, and for the great- 
er fertility of the small and weak ones. Surely weakness 
and exposure to danger do not promote fertility, nor 
strength and security tend to produce sterility. Nor is 
there any reason to believe that strong parental instinct 
and loving care of offspring tend to decrease fecundity. 
But here are the facts: small, weak, timid animals are 
very prolific ; the smallest and weakest animals are the 
most prolific; animals that neglect their young are very 
prolific; large and strong animals are not very prolific ; 
the largest and strongest animals are the least prolific ; 
animals that are very careful for their young also in- 
crease slowly. Neither natural selection, sexual selec- 
tion, use and disuse, nor any other cause or principle 
which Darwinism suggests, accounts for any of these 
phenomena. 

But this much is evident, that great fecundity exists 
wherever it is needed; wherever it is not needed, slow in- 
crease is the rule. The species that can be destroyed and 
are destroyed in large numbers, are very prolific, and 
thus their extinction is prevented. The species that can 
and do protect themselves, increase slowly. and thus their 
too great predominance is prevented. The species that 
neglect their offspring, need to breed rapidly in order to 
maintain their existence, and they do breed rapidly. 
Those that care for and preserve their young do not need 
to breed rapidly, and as a matter of fact, they do not. 

Admitting, then, that there is an intelligent, regula- 
ting power in the universe, we can account for the various 
degrees of fecundity among existing species. They are 
adapted and designed to prevent extinction of species on 
the one hand and undue predominance on the other. 

6. Natural malformations and monstrosities. Of these 
Darwinism gives no rational account. This failure might 
not be to its discredit, since no other scheme accounts for 


74 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


them, were it not for the claims that have been made in 
its behalf. 

Darwin's teaching on the subject is as follows: In one 
place he states that unnatural treatment of the embryo 
causes monstrosities, but he does not claim that a// mon- 
strosities are thus caused.! Again he says that a large 
number of monstrous growths and lesser anomalies are 
due to arrest of development, but he admits that many 
monstrosities cannot be thus explained? He however 
inost frequently classes monstrosities as veriations, thus : 
“Monstrosities cannot be separated by any clear line of 
distinction from mere variations.’ ‘“Monstrosities grad- 
uate so insensibly into mere variations that it is impossi- 
ble to separate them.’4 But classing monstrosities as 
variations is a virtual confession that the former are un- 
accountable; for variation is assumed as a fundamental 
fact which admits of no explanation. Yet, after all, Darwin 
was inclined to attribute malformations and monstrosities 
to latent characters and tendencies, and to account for 
them by reversion or recurrence.” Prof. Drummond goes 
the whole figure in attributing malformations and mon- 
strosities to reversion. He maintains even- that club- 
footed people derive their deformity by inheritance from 
gorillas. He declares that ‘“club-foot is simply gorilla 
foot.’’6 ; 

It seems tous that none of these suggestions and 
speculations account for malformations and monstrosities, 
and that men, who write as above, are hugely mistaken. 

There are various kinds and degrees of natural mal- 
formation—infants born with fewer than ‘five fingers on 
each hand; with supernumary fingers; with crooked 
fingers ; with but one hand ; without any hand ; with but 
one arm ; without any arm; without hand or arm; with 
two pairs of arms and hands; with but one leg; with 
three legs; without any leg; without either arm or leg; 
with feet on the shoulders and hands on the hips; with 
two heads; without a head; without a heart; without 
either head or heart; with two faces; with the face turned 
backward ; with the face turned side-wise; with one head 

(1) Origin of Specics, p. 15. 

(2) Variation of Plants and Animals, Vol. 2, p. 31-2. 

(3) Origin of Species, p. Ld. 

(4) Variation of Plants and Animals, Vol. 2, p- 241. 


(5) Descent of Man, p. 35-6. 
(6) Ascent of Man, p. 95-6. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. jae 


and two bodies; with one head, two bodies and one pair of 
legs; a head without a body. Voltaire, in his article on 
monsters, states that he had seen a woman who had on 
her breast the four teats and the tail of a cow. He also 
speaks of a girl born with a crawfish on her neck and the 
tail of a rat on her thigh.! 

Malformations are not confined to the human race ; 
they are found among the lower animals. The writer, in 
his boyhood, saw on his father’s farm in Preble county, 
Ohio, alamb with its head set on its shoulder. Some 
years ago, on a farm in Greene county, Ohio, near Xenia, 
there was born a calf with two heads and six legs. The 
writer, a few years ago, in Xenia, Ohio, saw, on public ex- 
hibition, a colt, about two years old, without fore-legs, 
which otherwise was well formed and in good condition. 

Voltaire closes his article on monstrosities, referred to 
above, with the words, “Owe sazs-je ?”* (What do I know?) 

Since Voltaire’s time, there have been much investiga- 
tion and writing in reference to malformations, but they 
are no better understood now than then ‘They are indeed 
classified, but not accounted for, though indeed many 
imagine that to classify is to explain. The phrases “ar- 
rest of development,’ “redundant growth,” and many 
cthers employed by writers on this subject, do not assign 
causes, and in reality do not go one whit beyond Topsy’s 
account of herself—‘‘/7 specs J jus growed.” And Darwin- 
ism too is utterly helpless so far as explaining these mon- 
strosities is concerned. The nature of many of them is 
such that the notion that they originate by reversion is 
absurd and intolerable, aside from the fact. that reversion 
itself is inexplicable. Are we to believe that there existed 
in former times monstrous creatures, xorvmad/y monstrous 
creatures, from which malformations and deformities de- 
scend by the law of inheritance ? Is it credible that among 
the ancestors of men there were deformed and defective 
races of beings—three-legged, one-legged, and no-legged 
creatures ; creatures without heads ; with two heads; with 
Janus-faced heads; with faces turned side-wise or back- 
ward ; or creatures fastened, two and two together, exist- 
ing thus in a normal condition and begetting offspring - 
like themselves? Even the notion that once among the 
ancestors of men there was a race of double creatures, like 


(1) Dictionnaire Phil.. Monstres. 
(2) Dictionnaire Philosophique, vol. 4, pp. 69, 70, 


76 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


the Siamese twins, seems to us absurd and incredible. If 
any man thinks that logic and common sense allow him to 
conceive and entertain such notions, be it so; we do not 
argue with him. But it seems to us it were better at once 
to say that this whole subject of malformations and mon- 
strosities is a profound mystery. There are malformations 
and monstrosities occurring from time to time, the very 
sight of which produces horror in every beholder and 
strikes dumb investigating enquirers. Were there no 
other forms than these, or if these were predominant ; were 
it not for the wonderful and ingenious contrivances and 
adaptations, which appear around us, it would be impos- 
sible to believe that the world is governed by wisdom and 
benevolence. But these imperfect, deformed and mon- 
strous creatures are exceptional and unaccountable. We 
know not why they exist. To claim that they are ex- 
plained by Darwinism is preposterous. Better to say with 
Voltaire, ‘What do J know ?’’ 

7. The facts in regard t) bees and other insects. These 
facts are as follows:.In the bee-hive there is, properly 
speaking, but one female, the so-called queen, which is 
merely a breeder. The drones are the males, of which 
there are hundreds in every hive during the breeding and 
working season. The queen is impregnated but once, and 
the drone, which impregnates her, loses his life in the act. 
The working bees, of which there are thousands, as many 
as fifteen or twenty thousand, in the hive, called neuters, 
are in general altogether sterile. In the absence of a 
queen, or in case of an infertile queen, these sterile workers 
sometimes deposit eggs, which produce only drones. An 
unimpregnated queen also lays eggs, from which only 
drones are hatched. There are also sterile workers 
among the ants as among the bees. Now the impossibil- 
ity of the origination of these so called neuters through 
natural selection is suggested by their sterility. Fertility 
and inheritance of slight modifications from generation to 
generation are essential to natural selection. Hence the 
origin of these sterile neuters.in this way is clearly impos- 
sible. Darwin, with his usual candor, admits that at first 
the difficulty appeared to him insuperable and actually 
fatal to his whole theory.! He, however, takes up the 
case of neuters among ants, and tries to show that they 
may possibly have been originated in the way his hypo- 

(1) Origin of Species, p. 209. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. af 


thesis demands. Success for this effort is claimed by Mr. 
Fiske, who speaks of ‘‘the signal success with which Mr. 
Darwin has explained the existence of neuters, or sterile 
females, among bees and ants.” ! But, (1.) Darwin at- 
tempted not to explain or to account for the existence of 
these neuters, but only to show why he believed their 
Darwinian origin Joss7ble, (2.) He assumes as an actual fact 
the origin of these neuters by natural selection and then 
declares that with all his faith in his own hypothesis he 
would never have anticipated that natural selection could 
have effected so much, had not the case of these neuters 
convinced him of the fact.2 The viciousness of this pro- 
ceeding in a logical point of view is evident. The ques- 
tlon is, could natural selection produce neuters among 
bees and ants? Ought we to believe this result possible? 
“Yes (answers Mr. Darwin), but I would never have _ be- 
lieved it possible, had not the actual origination of these 
neuters by natural selection convinced me of it.” Mr. 
Fiske exclaims, “Signal success!” (3.) The existence of 
these steriles involves a series of difficulties, which neither 
Darwin nor any one else has attempted to solve. Darwin 
admits that there are many instincts very difficult of ex- 
planation, which may be opposed to his theory of natural 
selection; that there are cases in which we cannot see how 
an instinct could possibly have originated; that there are 
cases in which no intermediate gradations are known to 
exist; that there are cases of instincts so very nearly the 
same in animals so remote in the scale of nature that we 
cannot account for their similarity by inheritance froma 
comnion parent; that how the workers have been rendered 
sterile is a difficulty; that the prodigious difference be- 
tween the working ants on the one side, and the genuine 
males and females on the other, constitutes “the great 
difficulty;’ further, that, in case of the steriles, acquired 
modifications and instincts could never have been trans- 
mitted by inheritance; ? and, that the climax of the diffi- 
culty is that, among several kinds of ants, the neuters are 
divided into several castes, differing from one another as 
well as from the fertile males and females, sometimes to 
an almost incredible degree. The most of these difficulties 
Darwin does not touch. All these difficulties, for many of 

(1) Cosmic Philos., Vol. 2, p. 20. 

(2) Origin of Species, p. 214. 

(3) Origin of Species, pp. 209-211. 


78 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


which there is no solution even proposed, taken together 
intensify the impossibility of the production of these sterile 
neuters through natural selection. (4.) The truth is that 
the constitution of the bee and ant communities presents a 
large number of anomalies and mysteries, the most of 
which are not only unaccountable, but also impossible ac- 
cording to Darwinism. Why is breeding limited to one 
female called the queen? Why is the queen, although she 
has hundreds of husbands, impregnated but once? Why 
does the drone, that impregnates the queen, lose his life 
in the act? Why is the queen by one impregnation ren- 
dered completely fertile ever afterward? Why does an un- 
impregnated queeen produce off-spring? Why does this 
fatherless offspring always turn out to be drones? Why 
are the workers, imperfect females as they are called, in- 
fertile? Why are they imperfect? Why dothey become 
prolific in the absence of a queen, or in case ofan infertile 
queen? Why, when they do breed, are their progeny 
always drones? Why are the legitimate working-bees so 
very different from both their parents in form, size, in- 
stinct, artistic skill and industrial habit? How are queens, 
drones and imperfect female workers all developed out of 
the one common kind of eggs and grubs? What different 
kinds of treatment, or of food, or of chemistry, do the 
workers employ to produce so widely different results ? 
Why is the queen, so peaceful and gentle in general, so 
fierce and deadly in her hostility against all rivals, sting- 
ing to death her own sisters and daughters? Why is but 
one queen tolerated in a bee-hive, while several are often 
found in an ant’s nest?! Why the difference ? 

Such are some of the anomalies, mysteries and impos- 
sibilities which confront Darwinism in its effort to explain 
phenomena as originating through natural selection and 
the struggle for existence. This taking up of a few phen- 
omena and pointing out that their existence does not per- 
haps give the lie to Darwinism, while hundreds of myster- 
ies and anomalies are left untouched, is absurd. Sir John 
Iubbock, in reference to such matters as are above referred 
to, says: “The exact mode by which the differences are pro- 
duced is still entirely unknown.” 

8. There are assumed or See ad in Ditnone as facts 
many things that are not explained. Of these we present 


(1) Lubbock’s Ants, Bees and Wasps, p. 19. 
(2) Ants, Bees and Wasps, p. 23. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 79 


the following as specimens. 

It is asserted as a fact that only afew species are at 
any one time undergoing modification, while the great 
majority of species are stationary; but no cause is assigned. 
It is asserted that many species remain unchanged through 
enormously long periods, and that some species have re- 
mained unchanged from the dawn of life to the present 
time, through all the geologically recorded ages; but no 
cause is assigned. Itis asserted as a fact that only some 
individuals or some varieties of a species, are ever trans- 
muted into a new species, while some individuals or some 
varieties persist in the old form and keep up the old 
species; but no cause is assigned. It is asserted that, 
while some individuals or some varieties of some species 
are transmuted into new species, the great majority of 
species are permanent and finally become extinct without 
leaving descendants of any kind; or, if it is asserted, as by 
Le Conte, that some species become rigid and others re- 
main or become more plastic, no cause is assigned for the 
difference. 

Thus Darwinism goes on and on, setting forth facts or 


claimed facts, without giving any explanation, and doubt-_ 


less because no explanation can be given. 

9. Besides all this, we meet in Darwinian books and 
elsewhere, with countless facts, of which Darwinism gtves 
and can give no explanation. 

Take, as an example, the fact alluded to above that 
the female ostrich, and especially the females of the emu 
branch of the ostrich family, are deficient in the maternal 
instinct. Darwin expresses, but does not explain, the fact 
by saying that the male emu has to protect the brood from 
their mother in order to keep her from destroying them. 
The Bible more accurately expresses the fact, and also ac- 
counts for it, by saying, “Sheis hardened against her 
young ones as though they were not hers; her labour is in 
vain, without tear; because God hath deprived her of wis- 
dom; neither hath he imparted to her understanding.” ! 

But, according to Darwinism, why is the mother 
ostrich hostile to her own offspring? Of what benefit is 
this hostility either to the mother herself, to the offspring, 
or to the species ? 

- Darwin found, at Bahia Blanca in South America, a 
black toad (phryniscuss nigricans) with red feet and stom- 


(1) Job 39:16. 


” 


/ 
J 
f 


* 


So COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


ach. He describes it, as follows: “If we imagine, first, 
that it had been steeped in the blackest ink, and then, 
when dry, allowed to crawl overa board, freshly painted 
with the brightest vermilion, so as to colour the soles of 
its feet and parts of its stomach, a good idea of its appear- 
ance will be gained. If it had been an unnamed species, 
surely it ought to have been called dzadolus, for it is a fit 
toad to preach in the ear of Eve.” ! Darwin did not ac- 
count for the colors of this toad, bnt Fiske has tried to do 
so. The latter, however, is silent in regard to the brilliant 
red of its feet and stomach, and fails to tell why its body is 


’ black rather than white or yellow. 


As illustrations of the weakness of Darwinism as an 
explanatory hypothesis we suggest the following queries : 

Why does not hair grow on the human forehead ? 
Why does hair grow on the human head? Why are wo- 
men beardless? Why does the male human voice change 
at the age of puberty? Why are some dogs hairless ? 
Why have hairless dogs imperfect teeth ? Why are white 
tomcats almost invariably blind? Why do deaf-mutes, 
even when intermarried, not transmit their peculiarity to 


/their offspring? (This is declared by Darwin to be unin- 


telligible. 1) Why do dogs, in running, often hold up one 
hind leg? (It will hardly be maintained that the ancient an- 
cestors of dogs had but one hind leg apiece, or that one 
hind leg or one hind foot was generally rheumatic or sore 
and had to be held up.) How are the horny excrescences 
that are found on the inside of the legs of horses, both be- 
fore and behind, to be accounted for? Are they to be 
classed as rudimentary organs, relics of the spurs worn by 
the ancientancestors of the horse? They are not in the 
right place for spurs, and besides they are possessed by 
females as well as by males. Possibly their design and 
use are to excrete excessive matter. But, in that case, will 
natural selection account for them? Are we to believe 
that formerly horses without such appendages fared badly 
in their environment and in the struggle for existence, and 
hence dwindled away and finally died out altogether ? 

Why is it that that the tails of no wild animals curl ? 
Why are humming-birds confined to the New World, and 
pheasants to the Old? (The American pheasant so-called 
is the grouse. 2) Why is it thatall animals with horns 

(1) Voyage of a Naturalist, Vol. 1 p. 124. 

(2) Variation of plants and animals, Vol. t p. 465-6. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. SI 


and cloven hoofs chew the cud? 

What determines color,shape and other phenomena 
in the vegetable and animal kingdoms? Why are lilies 
white, the roses red, the violets blue, the sun-flowers yel- 
low? Why is the breast of the yellow-hammer spotted ° 
that of the robin, brown; that of the woodpecker, white ‘ 
Why is the peach leaf oblong; the apple’ leaf, oval; the 
maple leaf, deeply notched; and the cottonwood, triangu- 
lar? Why are the edges of the leaves of various species 
so different, dentate, saw-toothed, scalloped, wavy, sinuate, 
jagged, lobed, cleft, etc. ? Why are some flowers staminate 
and others pistillate? What determines thenumber of se- 
pals and petals? What causes the regular, delicate and 
beautiful spots and tints found in many of the species of 
flowers? Why are not all the flowers thus adorned ? 

We might thus proceed to almost any length and fill a 
whole book with the simple enumeration of phenomena 
which Darwinism does not and cannot explain. It fails 
to assign causes not only for a vast number of phenomena 
in the inorganic and organic worlds, but also for the very 
facts and laws on which it claims to be based or in which 
it consists. The phenomena it explains, or claims to ex- 
plain, are but as a drop of the bucket compared with the 
ocean of facts whichit ignores. Even granting all that is 
claimed for it in the way of accounting for things, we can- 
not but regard it as being in this respect a dead failure. 

Nor could it be otherwise; for no principle or hypo- 
thesis, which leaves out Mind, Thought and Foresight can 
account for the grandeurand beauty, harmony and _ uni- 
formity, ingenious contrivances and wise adaptations, that 
are found amid the variety and complexity of the uni- 
verse. Granted a wise and contriving Mind, the Maker 
and Manager of the universe, we have an adequate cause 
ofall things, though the secondary causes or means in 
Inmany cases are at present, and perhape may remain 
forever, unknown, 


CHAPTER VII. 





THE HOMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 





THE homology, which, as we hold, furnishes an argu- 
ment against Darwinism, is the similarity, including iden- 
tity, which characterizes many genera and species exist- 
ing in distant and different ages and countries; and which, 
if Darwinism were true, ought to characterize all genera 
and species existing in the same age and country. _ 

The main point in the argument is this, that if Dar- 
winism were true, the homology wozeld not exist in many 
places where it does, and would exist in many places where 
it does not. 

According to Darwinism, heredity and variation are. 
constant factors in this sense that they operate irrespective- 
ly of environment. Everywhere, and in all ages, plants 
and animals transmit their own qualities and peculiarities 
to their offspring. Everywhere, and in all ages, offspring © 
differ by slight modifications from their parents. Every- 
where and in all ages, it is climate and other circumstances 
that make inherited modifications useful or useless, and 
hence determine what modifications shall be preserved 
and increased. Climate and other circumstances, which 
are included in what is called environment, are therefore 
potent in promoting differentiation and in the transmuta- 
tion of species. Hence if Darwinism be true, differences 
in environment must produce differences in species; ani- 
mals and plants, widely separated in time, and by many 
degrees of latitude, must be unlike ; and species living in 
the same country and climate, and in the same circum- 
stances, must be assimilated more and more. Especially 
would we not expect, if Darwinism be true, that flora and 
fauna widely separated by time and space would continue 
identical ; on the other hand, we would confidently expect 
that heredity, variation and environment (natural selec- 


COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC. 83 


tion) would at least in an age differentiate them and make 
of them different genera and species. 

But this is just what has not taken place. For we 
find widely different genera and species living in the same 
country, climate and environment, generation after genera- 
tion and age after age, and without any indications of 
assimilation ; and we find similar genera and species, and 
even identical genera and species, separated by vast dis- 
tances and many degrees of latitude, living in widely dif- 
ferent climates and environments, yet remaining identical 
or similar, generation after generation, and age after age. 

We will present proofs and illustrations of the two 
following facts taken together : viz, the similarity (includ) A 
ing identity) of genera and species in widely different en 
vironments, and the dissimilarity of genera and species in 
similar environments. 

Darwin concedes and copiously affirms both these facts. 
In discussing the geographical distribution of species, he 
states that there is hardly a climate or condition in the 
Old World which cannot be paralleled in the New and 
then exclaims, ‘Notwithstanding this parallelism of the 
Old and New Worlds, how widely different are their pro- 
ductions.”! Again, he speaks of large tracts of land in 
Australia, South Africa and Western South America, as 
having “parts extremely similar in all their conditions,” 
and then says, ‘‘yet it would not be possible to point out 
three faunas more utterly dissimilar.’2 He states that ‘“‘no 
two marine faunas are more distinct” than those separated 
by the narrow isthmus of Panama.? He further speaks of 
“the same species on the summits of distant mountain 
ranges, and at distant points in the arctic and antartic re- 
gions.”4 He states the fact that “the plants on the White 
mountains, in the United States of America, are all the 
same with those of Labrador.”® He quotes the declara- 
tion of Dana that “it is certainly a wonderful fact that 
New Zealand should have a closer resemblance in its 
crustacea to Great Britain, its antipode, than to any other 
part of the world.’ 

These facts are fully recognized by Agassiz. The 
title of one of his sections is, ‘“Szmzltaneous existence of the 
most diversified types under identical circumstances.’’ and of 

(1) Origin of Spectes, p. 302-3. (2) p. 303. (3) pp. 103-4. 

(4) Origin of Species, p. 309. (5) p. 31d. (6) p. 327+ 


84 ~COMMON SENSE N LOGIC 


=~ 


another is, ‘Repetition of identical types under the most at- 
versified circumstances.’’! In view of such facts, he affirms 
that “organized beings exhibit the most astonishing inde- 
pendence of the physical causes under which they live.’2 

These facts are recognized also. by Spencer, who 
quotes largely from Darwin on this subject. He quotes 
with approval Darwin’s declaration that, on the one hand, 
we have similarly-conditioned and sometimes nearly ad- 
jacent areas, occupied by two different faunas. On the 
other hand, we have areas remote from each other in _lati- 
tude, and contrasted in soil as well as climate, which are 
occupied by closely-allied faunas.’’® 

We assume, then, as proved and admitted that similar 
and even identical genera and species exist in widely dis- 
tant and widely different environments ; and widely dif- 
ferent genera and species in similar, and even identical 
environments. 

It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader that the 
most diverse plants and animals are often found together 
in the same locality and environments—oaks and daisies, 
pines and pinks, turkey-buzzards and humming-birds eagles 
and doves, buffaloes and grasshoppers, crocodiles and min- 
nows, elephants and musquitos, whales sharks and corals. 
These are examples of diverse animals found in the same 
regions and environments. On the other hand, man is a 
good illustration of the fact of the same species living in 
all sorts of environment, being found in almost all coun- 
tries, climes and latitudes. Nor has he anywhere been 
transmuted into another species. 

But, according to Darwinism, identical genera and 
species existing in different countries and latitudes, being 
differentiated more and more, would become new genera 
and species. Heredity and variation being constant fac- 
tors, and environment also continually operating to de- 
velop useful organs and qualities and to eliminate useless 
ones, the result must be, in the end, transmutation. 

The Darwinists overlook this matter. They call at- 
tention, as is shown above, to the facts of the existence of 
similar and identical species in widely distant and widely 
different regions. But they do so for the purpose of fram- 
ing an argument in favor of the migration of species and 
in opposition to special creations. We will hereafter show 

(1) Classification, pp. 12, 16. 

(2) p..r7; (3) Biology, vol.1, p. 388. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 85 


that the traditional view is entirely consistent with the 
theory of migrations.! But we maintain that while mi- 
gration might satisfactorily account for the coming togeth- 
er of different species, even of widely different species, in- 
to the same country and environment, it does not account 
for their refusal to be assimilated. Neither does it ac- 
count for the persistence of sp2cies in their own peculiari- 
ties, living in widely separated countries and in utterly 
dissimilar circumstances. According to Darwinists these’ 
things ought not so to be, and indeed cannot be. 

Perhaps the Darwinist is ready to plead that natural 
selection has not had time to do its work. He may say, 
in reference to this as to some other matters, “Just wait 
long enough and you will see the many species that exist 
in different countries and latitudes differentiating into 
different species, and the diverse species existing in the 
same environment and in the same circumstances assimi- 
lating into one. 

There are some considerations, however, that make 
such predictions more than doubtful. In the first. place, 
itis admitted that some genera and species have remained 
unchanged in spite ofall the efforts of natural selection 
for millions and millions of years, in fact through all the 
geological ages. It is true that Dana does not admit this 
fact, but even affirms that no species of animals has sur- 
vived through a single one of the several geological ages. 2 
As we have shown, however, Darwin admits that .some 
groups of species have endured from the earliest known 
dawn of life to the present day; ? and Spencer declares that 
“soine few species and a good many genera have continued 
throughout the whole period geologically recorded.” 4 Be- 
sides, Darwinists are under the necessity very often of 
falling back on the idea of the persistence of species 
through immense periods of time, and of all but maintain- 
ing the invariability of species. So too, having as they 
think accounted for the existence of similar species in wide- 
ly separated countries and in totally different circumstances, 
by migration, they seem to treat the persistence of these 
species in similarity to one another as a matter of course 
and of no concern. 

According to these views, there has already been a 

(1) See ae IX, PP. 424-455. 

(2) New Text-book of CC COLORY Pp. 382. 


(3) Ortgin of Species, p. 278 
(4) Biology, vol. 1, p. 322. 


86 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


long continued persistence. Variation, the influence of 
environment and natural selection, have been resisted for 
many ages. According to the views of many of the Dar- 
winists man,‘and the animals associated with him. were 
on the earth before the glacial period. We say nothing 
about such calculations as those of Darwin, who speaks of 
an infinite number of generations and 300 millions of years 
since the latter part of the secondary period. But accord- 
ing tocurrent views concerning the glacial period, we have 
many years of stability in man and his contemporaries— 
the glacial period 160,000 years—8o0,000 years since that 
period—z240,000 years since the beginning of the glacial 
period—men with dogs and cattle on earth long before 
this—the human period, in all perhaps 400,000 years. 1! 

During this long period, men have been living in 
almost.all countries and climes, subject to heat and cold, 
moisture and drought, and to the vicissitudes of almost 
every sort of environment; and yet there is but one human 
species. Thus it appears that natural selection has had 
abundant opportunity to do its very best or its very worst 
with man—to elevate or degrade him—has had him asa 
subject of experiment in almost all kinds of circumstances 
and for hundreds of thousands of years; and yet there are 
no indications of the introduction of a new human species. 

The same may be said in regard to dogs, cows, and 
other associates of man. Among them all there are no in- 
dications of an approach totransmutation. It would seem 
that natural selection, even with the accompaniments of 
the glacial period to aid it, has proved a failure. 

In view of such facts as are above presented, Prof. Le 
Conte finds it necessary to bring in certain modifications 
of the doctrine of evolution. 

1. He suggests that evolution is not wuzzform, but parox- 
ysmal, These are-his own words. He admits, however, 
that nearly all evolutionists . have assumed and even in- 
sisted on wzzformity. 

.2. He takes the ground that most species become rigid 
and remain unchanged, and that only the more A/astzc forms 
change into other species.2 It would thus appear that 
natural selection only takesin hand the species or individ- 
uals that are more p/astic and the easiest to transmute, 
and even then takes an immense period of time to do its 

(1) Fisk’s Excursions, pp. 75-6. 

(2) Evolution, pp. 257, 206-7. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 87 


work. But these modifications of evolution are introdnced 
to meet the difficulties and objections, which are above 
suggested. 

We claim that the traditional (or Biblical) theory cor- 
responds to the facts in the case. Migration of species, as 
we will hereafter show, is implied in the sacred record. 
Now the migration of species accounts for the existence of 
similar species in-distant and diverse regions, and the in- 
variability of species accounts for the continuance of their 
similarity notwithstanding the differences of environment. 


CHAPTER VIII. 





THE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF DARWINISM. 





I. ONE of the Darwinian impossibilities is the exzs/ence 
of nascent or new organs. 

- Itis claimed that the function of natural beleenien is 
not to originate new organs, but only to preserve small and 
useful variations. Natural selection, it is claimed, disfavors 
everything that is net useful toits possessor. But an z- 
cipient organ cannot be of any use to its possessor. Ac- 
cording to Darwinism, every organ at first is a slight modi- 
fieation. It cannot, therefore, be advantageous at first. 
Any organ, or part, that is useless must be worse than 
useless, an inconvenience and a waste of material. It is 
true that Darwin says: ‘A nascent organ, though little 
developed, as ithas to be developed, must be useful in 
every stage of development.’ ! Andagain, ‘Nascent or- 
gans, though not fully developed, are of high service to 
their possessors.” 2 Itis true that a nascent organ some- 
what developed might be useful; and in the quotation given 
above, Darwin takes care to speak of a nascent organ as 
“a little developed.” But an incipient organ, one just be- 
ginning, is only a slight modification or variation. Ac- 
cording to Darwinism, such must every new organ be at 
first. Hence no new organ at its first appearance can be 
in any degree useful to its possessor. It must begin to be 
developed before it can be useful. Butit must be useful 
before it can begin to be developed. The Darwinist thus 
reasons in acircle. Half time he puts (in common phrase) 
the cart before the horse; or, rather he tries to make the 
horse to go wrong end foremost and to go two opposite 
ways at once, in affirming, as he does, that an incipient 
organ must be useful in order to begin to be devolped, and 


(1) Life and Letters, vol. 1, p. 7. 
(2) Descent of Man, p 12, 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 89 


that it must be developed in order to begin to be useful. 

Let no one accuse us of misrepresentation. Darwin 
says : ‘Natural selection acts solely through the preserva- 
tion of variations in some way advantageous, which conse- 
quently endure.” And again: “As natural selection acts 
solely by accumulating slight successive, favourable varia- 
tions, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it 
can act only by very short and slow steps.” ! 

Let it be observed, (1) that natural selection acts sole- 
ly on slight and advantageous variations; (2) that natural 
selection acts solely through preserving and accumulating 
such variations; and (3) that every incipient organ ap- 
pears at first inthe form of a slight variation. In these 
conceptions is involved the absurd impossibility, pointed 
out above, as follows: certain slight variations endure be- 
cause they are advantageous; they become advantageous 
because they endure, being preserved and accumulated 
through natural selection. 

It appears that Darwin, admirableas he was for power 
of observation and induction, never perceived the absurd 
impossibility involved in his hypothesis of natural selec- 
tion. But some of his disciples have been made both to 
see and feelit. It has been brought clearly before them by 
the Duke of Argyle, as follows: 

“Tt follows, as a matter of necessity, that.every modifi- 
cation of structure must have been functionless at first 
when it began to appear. ... Things cannot be selected 
until they have first been produced. Nor can structure be 
selected by utility in the struggle for existence until it has 
not only been produced, but has been so far perfected as 
to be actually used.” 

Dr. Romanes, of England, attempted to break the force 
of the argument as thus presented by affirming that some 
incipient organs are useful from the very moment of their 
inception. He refers to the eye as an example, and, evolu- 
tionist-like, assumes it to have been at first the mere end 
of a cutaneous nerve sensitive to light. He declares that 
the little speck of black pigment, which he imagines the 
eye to have been at first, was advantageous to its possessor 
in enabling him to shun darkness and to seek the light. 
All this is mere conjecture. But, by the way, we presume 
that what are commonly called freckles may be taken as 
specimens of “the pigment spots in the skin,” which Prof. 

(1) Origin of Species, pp. 102, 408. 


90 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


Romanes speaks of as incipient eyes just alittle developed. 
Why did the learned professor not enlighten us in regard 
to the practical use of freckles, those pigment spots in the 
skin, which we know do exist asa matter of fact? It 
would seem, according to Darwinism, that, if freckled peo- 
ple would intermarry during many generations, and, if by 
means of geographical distribution, migration and isolation 
this variety of people could be kept from what is called 
“the swamping effect of cross breeding,’ there would be 
in time a race of people with eyes all over their faces, and 
a few ontheir necks and hands. But the practical use of 
freckles or other pigment spots in the skin, or of the sore 
ends of lacerated nerves, while they are still freckles, 
pigment spots, and mere sore ends of lacerated nerves, is 
to us not demonstrated, but altogether imaginary. No 
such incipent eyes, nor indeed incipient eyes at all, are 
known as matters of fact. Romanes takes his illustration 
wholly from the region of fancy. 

In the same illogical and fanciful way, the Professor 
suggests that an organ useful for the performance of one 
function may become fitted for the performance of another 
and more important function. He refers as an example to 
the claimed transmutation of the swim-bladders of aquatic 
animals into the lungs of air-breathing animals. Here he 
assumes as a fact whatis not known as such. Besides, he 
assumes that the swim-bladders were well developed before 
their metamorphosis into lungs. Rut the question at once 
arises, how could swim-bladders in their incipient stage, 
and therefore useless, begin to develop? While in that 
condition, natural selection would have nothing to do with 
them except to make war onthem. Thus the difficulty is 
merely shifted, not removed. After all, Romanes virtually 
admits the validity of this argument against Darwinism. 
In the first place he claims only that some incipient organs 
can be useful, thus conceding that some of them could not 
be. ‘This latter fact is sufficient to demonstrate the failure 
of natural selection, which is the main point of Darwinism. 
In the second place he admits “that natural selection can 
only begin to operate, if the degree of adaptation is already 
given as sufficiently high to count for something in the 
struggle for exzstence;” and he declares the failure to per- 
ceive this tact to be one of the oversights and fallacies of the 
followers of Darwin. He further dectares their course in 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY OI 


reference to these matters to be clearly illogical.' In 
treating of these points, he writes as if he himself were not 
a Darwinist. 

Prof. Le Conte goes still further in his admissions. 
He admits that an organ must be already useful before 
natural selection can take hold of it and improve it; that 
it can not make an organ useful, but only more useful, 
that until organs have attained a considerable size or are 
pretty well developed, they would seem to be a hindrance 
to be removed by natural selection instead of a benefit to 
be preserved and improved; and that many organs must 
have passed through this zzczprent stage, in which their 
use was prospective. Admitting these facts, he of course 
must admit that they are insuperable objections to Darwin- 
ism. Hence he takes the ground that ‘‘these are not ob- 
jectious to evolution or derivation, but only to Darwinism, 
or any other special theory as a sufficient explanation of the 
process of evolution.” 2 

Thus Prof. Ie Conte gives up natural selection as in- 
consistent with admitted facts. But what is Darwinism 
without natural selection? Without this, its main and 
essential notion, it is a shabby affair, worthy neither of 
advocacy nor opposition, an organism without a backbone, 
a tree without a trunk. Even Fiske, whois an ardent 
champion of Darwinism, has found it necessary to reject 
Darwinism as taught by Darwin. He speaks of ‘the ac- 
celeration of the diversification of species,” ? which is 
directly opposite to Darwin’s view and oft repeated declara- 
tion that natural selection is a slow and gradual process. 
Fiske also affirms that “the effects of natural selection are 
by no means limited to slight changes,” which is another 
contradiction of the teachings of Darwin. Had Fiske 
paid sufficient attention to the argument against natural 
selection drawn from the notion of incipient organs, to 
appreciate its force, he would probably, like Le Conte, 
have felt constrained to admit its validity against Darwin- 
ism, and to fall back on the claim that it does not touch 
the general doctrine of evolution. 

II. Another of the impossibilities involved in Darwin- 
ism 1s the existence of rudimentary organs of the atrophied 
sort. 

(1) Darwin and after Darwin, Vol. 1, pp. 352-4, 275. 
(2) Evolution and tts Relation to Religious Thought, pp. 270-1 
(3) Cosmic Philos. Vol. 1, p. 48. 


Q2 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


Of course Darwinians insist on the existeace of useless, 
atrophied and dwarfed organs, in men and the lower ani- 
mals, and employ this real or supposed fact asan argument 
to prove the descent of modern from ancient species. 
Thus the advocates of Darwinism pretty generally main- 
tain that the os coccyx (cuckoo-bone)in man, i, e., the curved 
termination of the spinal column, is the relic of a tail, and 
indicates that men have descended from long-tailed ances- 
tors. Thus too the pelvic bones in whales are considered 
to be rudimentary legs and are claimed as evidence that 
the whale is descended from quadruped ancestors. It is 
further claimed that the two little supernumerary teats 
on the udders of cows, matmimze in men, foetal teeth in 
whales, dew-claws in dogs, muscles in men for moving the 
ears and scalp-skin, hair on the adult human body, and 
many other organs and parts of organs, are claimed as 
rudimentary and as proofs of descent of species from 
former species. 

Without discussing at this time the question whether 
or not there are in reality rudimentary organs, we main- 
tain that, according to Darwinism, there can be none. Our 
proposition is, that, according to Darwinism, a rudimentary 
organ is an impossibility 

There are two facts or principles set forth by Darwin- 
ism which demonstrate the impossibility of the existence 
of rudimentary organs at the present time. One of these 
principles is that such organs are wse/ess, and the other is 
that useless organs must dwindle away and be oé/zterated. 
These principles do not indeed utterly forbid the existence 
of rudimentary organs, but they require their existence to 
be temporary. They suggest that if such organs ever did 
exist, they long since became extinct. 

As to the first point, it is sufficient to state that the 
definition of rudimentary organs is that they are organs 
atrophied and dwarfed by disuse. It is indeed true that 
Darwin divides them into two classes—those that are “ab- 
solutely useless,’ and those that are of “such slight service 
to their present possessors that we can hardly suppose 
that they were developed under the conditions which now 
exist.” But heimmediately adds, “Organs in this latter 
state are not strictly rudimentary, but they are tending in 
this direction.” ! According to Darwin, then, true rudi- 

(1) Descent of Man, p p 11-12. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOOY. 93 


mentary organs are absolutely useless. 

Now, according to Darwinism, absolutely useless or- 
gans are an impossibility, for the reason that natural 
selection will make war upon them and obliterate them. 
Darwin says: “Natural selection is continually trying to 
economize in every part of the organization. If under 
changed conditions of life a structure before useful becomes 
less useful, any diminution, however slight in its develop- 
ment, will be seized on by natural selection, for it will pro- 
fit the individual not to have its nutriment wasted in 
building up an useless structure.” ! Here natural selec- 
tion is spoken of as operating against “structures once 
useful which have become less useful.” Ofcourse natural 
selection will, then, make war upon structures or organs 
that have become adsolutely useless. But Darwin further 
says: “The principle also of economy, explained in a 
former chapter, by which the materials forming any part 
or structure, if not useful to the possessor, will be saved as 
far as possible, will probably often come into play, and 
this will tend to cause theentire obliteration of a rudiment- 
ary organ.” @ 

The testimony of Hzeeckel is as follows: “If, for ex- 
ample, an organ degenerates from non-use, this degenera- 
tion ends finally in a complete disappearance of the organ, 
as is the case with the eyes of many animals.” ? He also 
speaks of rudimentary organs as being “imperfect and on 
the road to complete disappearance.” 4 

Huxley has fully recognized the uncertainty and weak- 
ness of the argument drawn from rudimentary organs. 
Speaking of dysteleology (Heckel’s word for anti-teleo- 
logy, the doctrine of “purposelessness’’) he says: “I con- 
fess, however, that it has often appeared to me that the facts 
of dysteleology cut two ways. If we are to assume, as 
evolutionists in general do, that useless organs atrophy, 
such cases as the existence of lateral rudiments of toes, in 
the foot of a horse, place us ina dilemma. For either 
these rudinients are of no use to the animal, in which case 
(considering that the horse has existed in its present form 
since the Pliocene epoch), they surely ought to have dis- 
appeared; or they are of some use to the animal, in which 

(1) Ortgin of Spectes, p. 134. 


(2) Origin of Species. p. 395. 
(3) Hystory of Creation, Vol. 1, Pp. 249. (4) p. 12, 


94 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


case they are of no use as arguments against teleology.” 
Huxley speaks of mammeze in male mammals as present- 
ing a still stronger case. Alluding to the fact that there 
are on record cases of the breasts of men becoming funct- 
ionally active, though there is no mammalian species 
whatever in which the male normally suckles the young, 
he says: ‘“‘There can be little doubt that the mammary 
gland was as apparently useless in the remotest male 
mammalian ancestor of man as in living men, and yet it 
has not yet disappeared. Is it then still profitable to the 
male organism to retain it? Possibly; but in that case its 
dysteleological value is gone.” | 

These views of Huxley concerning rudimentary organs 
were by no means satisfactory to Darwin, and he remon- 
strated againstthem. He wrote to Huxley as follows: “I 
write (requiring no answer) to groan a little over what you 
have said about rudimentary organs. Many heretics will 
take advantage of what you have said.” ” 

The cause of Darwin’s dissatisfaction is quite evident. 
The heretics, as he called them, are the opponents of Dar- 
winism. 

We present the testimony of one more witness, that of 
Prof. Le Conte, who speaks of rudimentary organs as use- 
less, and then says: ‘“‘They are not, however, shed or drop- 
ped bodily at once. No; they are retained by heredity, 
but dwindle by disuse more and more until they pass away 
entirely.” 3 EBs 

Of what has been shown concerning the impossibility 
of rudimentary organs, this is the sum: 

(1.) Darwinists declare them to be useless. This is im- 
plied in the claim that they are disused. Darwin declares 
it to be a matter of astonishment, that while it is plain 
that most parts and organs are exquisitely adapted for cer- 
tain purposes, it is equally plain that ‘these rudimentary 
or atrophied organs are imperfect and useless.” 4 

(2.) Darwinists holdandteach that disused and useless 
organs must and do atrophy and waste away. Huxley, as 
quoted above, says that evolutionists in general assume 
this position. 

(3.) It follows, therefore, that every disused and useless 


1) Critiqgquesand Addresses, pp. 274-5. 

2) Life and Letters, Vol. 2, pp 299-300. 
3} Evolution &c., pp. 182. 
4 


( 
( 
( 
( Origin of Species, p. 393. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 95 


organ must disappear. This too is affirmed by Darwin- 
ists, many of whom, as shown above, speak of the oblitera- 
tien and disappearance of the so-called rudimentary organs 
as a matter of course. As we have shown, Darwin uses 
the word “obliteration”; Hzeckel’s phrase is ‘‘on the road 
to complete disappearance”; Huxley says, ‘ought to have 
disappeared”; and Le Conte speaks of the rudimentary or- 
gans as “passing away entirely.” 

It may be claimed, as in accordance with these views 
and representations, that rudimentary organs may havea 
temporary existence. Doubtless some of the Darwinists, if 
questioned, would be ready to answer that natural selection 
has not had sufficient time to do its work upon the surviv- 
ing rudiments, but that it will obliterate them in the com- 
ing ages. 

This plea of want of time will not do. In the human 
body it is claimed that there are seventy vestigial or rudi- 
mentary structures. Man is described as an old curiosity 
shop, a museum of obsolete anatomies, discarded, out- 
grown and.aborted.! Some of these disused and useless 
organs, if indeed they are what they are claimed to be, 
must be of great antiquity. Take, as an example, mam- 
mee in men. There is no species of mammals in which 
’ the male suckles the young. If the mamme in men, 
therefore, are rudimentary and useless, they must have been 
in this condition during an exceedingly long period. Just 
as Huxley says, the mammary gland, if now rudimentary 
and useless in living men, must have been so in the re- 
motest male ancestor of man.? Still farther; if the gill- 
slits in human creatures are, as claimed, rudimentary, they 
point to a time when the ancestors of men lived in the 
sea, and must have endured from that period to the pre- 
sent. Indeed Prof. Drummond says that prominent among 
the vestigial structures found in the human body are those 
“which smack of the sea.” ? Thus the origin of these 
structures ante-dates the time when the aquatic ancestors 
of man first came out on land. During the immense per- 
iod that has elapsed since that event took place—100,000 
years, 500,000 years, a million of years, many millions of 
years—these rudimentary organs have persisted in a dis- 
used, useless and atrophied condition. And still they have 

(1) Drummona’s Ascent of Man, pp. 83, 97. 


(2) Critiques and Addresses, p. 275. 
(3) Ascent of Man, p. 83. 


96 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


not yet disappeared, and zealous Darwinists are constrained 
to ask for more time in order to allow natural selection an 
opportunity to obliterate them. No wonder that Huxley 
exclaimed, in reference to such facts, ‘They place us in a 
dilemma.” 

For these reasons we have said that, according to 
Darwinism, there are no rudimentary organs, and there 
can be none. Theorgans claimed as such,if disused and 
useless, would have disappeared long ago. Since they 
have not disappeared, they are neither disused nor useless, 
and are therefore not rudimentary. 

It is thus shown that the existence of rudimentary 
organs in men, whales, serpents, monkeys and other ani- 
mals, is, according to Darwinism, an impossibility. 

III. Another impossibility involved in Darwinism is 
the derivation of terrestrial animals fromaquatic animals. 

Darwin indeed suggests that whales are metamor- 
phosed bears; and it is claimed that porpoises as well as 
whales have descended from terrestrial quadrupeds. But 
the Darwinian doctrine is that land animals in general, 
including man, have descended from aquatic animals. 

But common sense shows that the metamorphosis of 
water animals into land animals could not be effected in 
the Darwinian way, even granting (what is impossible) 
that slight modifications and incipient organs could be use- 
ful from the first; or, supposing (what is again impossible) 
that the water animals had organs to begin with, which 
by further development would fit them for the land. For 
these modifications, incipient organs, or pretty well deve- 
loped organs, if fitting their possessors for the land, could 
not be useful tothem as aquatic animals. Darwinism does 
not allow natural selection to preserve any modification or to 
develope or improve any organ with a view to future use- 
fulness. It has no foresight or design. It works only for 
the preservation and improvement of modifications and 
organs that are advantageous to their possessors at pre- 
sent, and in their present environment. A fish, while it 
stays in the water, cannot acquire legs and lungs, and if 
it comes out on the land it will die. It can not survive 
long enough out of the water for its. fins even to begin to 
grow into legs and its swim-bladder into lungs. As long as 
it remains a fish, it must stay in the water, and as long as 
it stays in the water, natural selection will make war upon 
all modifications of its form and structure that would unfit 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 97 


it for its present environment. A fish, therefore, must re- 
main‘ if not a fish, at least an aquatic animal forever. 
Natural selection will not allow it to take on the form and 
structure of a land animal while inhabiting the water, and 
it cannot live more than a few minutes on land. 

Spencer undertakes to show that a fish might indeed 
become aland animal. He evidently felt the force of Von 
Baer’s ridicule, yet he gravely affirms that some fish “do 
take a walk” and “ramble about on land,’ and that one 
kind of fish climés trees. The fishes, to which Spencer 
thus alludes, are crabs, gasteropods and lobsters. The 
tree-climbing-fish is a kind of lobster found in the Mauri- 
tius.! The fishes that thus go promenading occasionally 
over the land or that climb trees are simply amphibians. 
The impossibility of areal fish or other genuine water 
animal becoming an amphibian is just as clear as of its 
becoming a land reptile, quadruped or biped. Some am- 
phibious land animals take strolls through the water. 
There is one kind of toad that can and actually does live 
on trees and also in the water. But the difficulty which 
confronts Spencer, and which he does not meet, is this: 
How, according to Darwinism, could well organized fishes, 
the most advanced of their species, acquire or develop 
organs which were entirely useless, if not a positive hind- 
rance, to them, and which could be of use to them only in 
case they should cease to be fishes and come out on land. 
Spencer produces nothing to remove the absurdity of the 
conception of well developed fishes, while using their gills 
only in breathing water and their fins only in swimming, 
converting their gills into lungs and their fins into legs and 
thus preparing the way for their future offspring to forsake 
the water and pasture in the meadows. 

Prof. Drummond has an off-hand way of accounting 
for the transmutation of man from a water animal into a 
land animal. According to his view, man made the change 
as easily as a boy learns to whistle. His account is as 
follows: 

“When man left the water—or what was to develop 
into man—he took very much more ashore with him than 
a’shell. Instead of crawling ashore at the worm stage, he 
remained in the water until he evolved into something like 
a fish; so that when, after an amphibian interlude, he final- 

(1) Biology, Vol. 1, pp. 392-4. 


98 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


ly left it, many ancient and fish-like characters remained 
in his body to tell the tale.” ! 

This statement, like much else that has been written 
on the same subject, sets common sense and logic at defi- 
ance. Man, we are told, while being something likea 
fish, living in the water and breathing only water, became 
an amphibian. But how could he acquire or develop am- 
phibious organs while living wholly in the water and 
breathing only water, as he must have done before he _ be- 
came an amphibian? Natural selection would develop, 
and in fact /olerate, only such modifications and organs as 
would be of advantage to him as a water-breathing animal. 
Hence natural selection would forever keep him a water 
animal and a water-breathing animal by barring the way 
to his becoming an amphibian. If while ‘something like a 
fish,’ he had any organs that. would be useful to him on 
land, natural selection would make war on them and sup- 
press them. But how easily Prof. Drummond slips over 
these and other difficulties! He is, however, by no means 
singular in doing so. 

It is perhaps conceivable that according to Darwinism 
aland animal should become a water animal. For land — 
animals can wade and swim in the water, and thus, ac- 
cording to the principles of Darwinisin, a gradual modifi- 
cation of form and structure night possibly begin. Wedo 
not maintain that the metamorphosis of bears into whales, 
in the way supposed and described by Darwin, is self-con- 
tradictory or absurdly impossible; but we do say this in 
regard to the metamorphosis of whales into bears or into 
any other kind of land animal. Forifawhale comes out 
on land (becomes stranded), it has no power of locomotion, 
and mustsoon die. In order to live, air-breathing though 
it be, it must remain in or on the water; and whatever 
changes it may experience through the struggle for exis- 
tence and natural selection, these changes will only be 
such as are useful to it in its present environment. Na- 
tural selection therefore could not tend to transmute it 
into a bear or any other land animal. 

Nor could the flying-fish ever be changed by natural 
selection into bird, reptile or other land animal. Its re- 
maining in the water nearly all the time; its using its fins 
almost constantly in swimming, and its constant use of its 

(1) Ascent of Man, p. 85. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 99 


water-breathing apparatus, must tend much more strongly 
to keep up its piscine form, structure and habits than can 
its jumping occasionally up into the air for a few seconds 
tend to transform it into an animal of the air or land. 

But most of the aquatic animals never leap into the 
airand never come out on land. And the effect of natural 
selection, even in these few exceptional cases, must be to 
perpetuate aquatic forms, structures and habits. Natural 
selection itself must forever prevent the transmutation of 
aquatic animals into land animals. 

IV. Another impossibility in Darwinism is ‘the tucrease 
of the number of species. 

We maintain that, according to Darwinism, there 
ought to have been and must have been, for many ages 
preceding our own, not an increase, but a large decrease in 
the number of species. 

We have already shown ! that the Darwinian doctrine 
is that but few species change, and that transmutation is 
exceptional. We again call attention to the declaration of 
Darwin already quoted in our chapter on the invariability 
of species, as follows: “And of the species now living 
very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant 
futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are 
grouped shows that the greater number of species of each 
genus, and all the species of many genera, have no des- 
cendants, but have become utterly extinct.’ 2 We have 
also quoted the express words of Huxley, declaring that 
the ascertained facts of paleeontology ‘negative the com- 
mon doctrines of progressive modification,’ and that per- 
sistency of type prevails everywhere among allthe genera 
and species of all the four classes of animals except the 
higher vertebrates. ? We have shown that Spencer affirms 
that even this appearance of slight modification “may be, 
and probably is, mainly illusive,” and may “indicate noth- 
ing more than successive migrations from pre-existing 
continents.” ® We have laid before our readers the em- 
phatic declarations of Le Conte, that “ost species become 
rigid and either remain unchanged, almost indefinitely, or 
else die out and leave no descendants; and that only the more 
plastic forms change into other species.” 

Now, according to these views, the increase of species 

(1) Chap. 3. 

(2) Origin of Species, p. 423. 

(3) Chap. 3. 


100 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


is impossible. The final result must be the absolute ex- 
tinction of species. Evenif Darwin’s four or five, or his 
one primordial form, had in some way gotten a start in 
propagation and increase, the law that only a very few 
species (to use Darwin’s words) shall transmit progeny to 
a distant future, and that the greater number shall become 
utterly extinct, will ultimately reduce them to their origi- 
nal small number and exterminate them altogether. 

It appears that Le Conte alone perceived this difficul- 
ty. In order to meet it, he supposes that the few more 
plastic species that are changed into other species, are 
changed usually each into several species, that “thus the 
number of forms may be undiminished.’ ! But the only 
evidence or argument in favor of this hypothesis is the 
fact that it is needed to help out Darwinism. It, however, 
is after all inadequate to remove the difficulty. For ac- 
cording to Darwinian views, as above presented, only a 
jew species change, and the many become extinct. Le 
Conte’s hypothesis, therefore, needs amendment by ex- 
pansion. While he was at it he might as well have sup- 
posed that one species is transmuted into many as into 
several other species ; rather better in fact, for the former 
hypothesis is what Darwinism needs, and there is just as 
much evidence for the one as for the other; that is, none 
at all. The very fact that there is need of such an hypothe- 
sis and the recognition of the fact by so ablea man as Le 
Conte demonstrate that we have here one of the impossi- 
bilities of Darwinism. 

V. Another of the impossibilities involved in Darwin- 
ism is the origin of species, by naturol selection, in a state of 
nature. 

Let it be observed that we are not now affirming that 
species could not possibly originate in a state of nature, 
but only that, zz a state of nature, species could not origi- 
nate 7z the way suggested by Darwinism. 

Artificial selection does indeed produce varieties or 
breeds. But these are the result of design and care. The 
breeder brings together chosen males and females by pairs 
in order that peculiarities may be reproduced and increased 
in their offspring. Butin a state of nature, the pairing of 
males and females is not brought about with a view to 
securing peculiarities in the offspring; supervision and 

(1) Hvolution and its Relation to Religious Thoughts, pp. 266 7. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. IOI 


care are absent. To be sure the phrase watural selection 
implies that'‘nature chooses. Butthe phrase 1s figurative; 
nature is not a person, and Darwinism excludes all care, 
design and foresight in natural selection. But these are 
essential factors in artificial selection. Even after varieties 
have been produced, these begin to revert back to the 
original type whenever the care and efforts ot the cultivator 
are withdrawn. Suchreversion has to be carefully guarded 
against by fanciers and cultivators. They must select in- 
dividuals whose pairing is likely to transmit and increase 
certain peculiarities, and this selective pairing must be 
carefully attended to, generation after generation. Even 
one unsuitable pairing will in a great measure or altogether 
destroy what has been gained by selective breeding and 
careful cultivation. Yet with all the care, foresight and 
efforts of breeders and fanciers; though maintained for 
thousands of years, the results are not new species, but 
only varieties. And when human care and effort are with- 
drawn, and intercrossing is allowed to take place, rever- 
sion to the original type inevitably takes place. Indeed 
free intercrossing must be prevented in order that a well 
defined variety may be produced and maintained. 

It is evident, then, that intercrossing must be pre- 
vented in order that species may be produced in the Dar- 
winian way. Darwin admits that free inter-crossing will 
wholly stop the work of the selective breeder, | and hence 
he declares that ‘isolation is an important element in the . 
process of natural selection,” and that ‘isolation is of con- 
siderable importance in the production of new species.” 2 
He even declares that ‘isolation appears the chief element 
in the production of new forms.” ? But Romanes was not 
satisfied with any of these admissions, as is shown by the 
following declaration: “Although Darwin in his latter years 
came to recognize more fully the swamping effect of free 
intercrossing, it is evident that he never worked out any 
of these matters.” Romanes expressed his own belief by 
saying that “in the case of poly/ypic evolution, such evolu- 
tion, by natural selection alone is absolutely impossible.” 4 
He also puts in capital letters, among his general con- 
clusions, the declaration that, “ W7thout ¢solation or the pre- 
vention of free tntercrossing, organic evolution ts in no Case 


(1) Origin of Species, p. 96. (2) pp. 97, 98. 
(3) Life and Letters, Vol. 2, p. 28. 
(4) Darwin and after Darwin, Vol 3, p. 108. 


IO2 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


possible.’ 1 Hence Romanes admits that there are two 
“fatal difficulties” connected with natural selection as ad- 
vocated by Darwin; the one being the contrast between 
natural species and domesticated varieties in respect to 
cross-sterility, and the other “the swamping effects of free 
crossing.’ 2 Hence he introduces the hypothesis of Ahyszo- 
logical selection. I,e Conte also notices this ‘“swamping”’ 
business, andsays: “This difficulty has been severely felt 
by all Darwinists.” * The difficulty thus referred to is the 
fact that the individuals of each species breed together, 
and as long as they do so, divergences and peculiarities 
will be, as it were, absorbed, and thus the formation of new 
species will be prevented. Darwin claimed that geogra- 
phical isolation would prevent the swamping effects of in- 
tercrossing. Romanes and Le Conte, on the contrary, 
however, suggest and maintain that physiological selection, 
by which they mean s¢ervzlity of varieties with one another, 
is just the thing that is needed as an additional agent in 
the production of new forms. 

We claim, however, that this whole hypothesis of the 
prevention of the free intercrossing of animals of the 
same species, in a state of nature, by isolation and physio- 
logical selection, is contrary to observation, logic and com- 
mon sense. ‘Without outlet for migration (says Le Conte) 
commencing varieties could not pass into species, because 
swamped by cross-breeding.” 4 Certainly migration is 
conceivable as a means of isolation. But ow cana com- 
mencing variety ora commencing species be isolated by 
immigration ? The individuals that constitute the com- 
mencing variety or the commencing species will not go off 
by themselves and form a separate herd or flock. To sup- 
pose such a thing is absurd. This is not the way either 
men, beasts or birds migrate. No one ever saw bandy- 
legged sheep, like Seth Wright's ram, leave the rest of the 
flock and go off by themselves. The stump-tailed bulls 
and cows do not secede from the rest of the herd. The 
Dominica hens never demand to havea poultry yard all to 
themselves. Such divisions as these never take place 
among the lower animals. The writer has fed sheep, 
swine, cows, horses, dogs, cats, chickens, turkeys, ducks, 

(1) Darwin and after Darwin, Vol. 3, p. 145. 

(2) Vol- 4) ps Al: 

(3) Evolution, etc., pp. 76, 77. 

(4) Evolution etc., p. 77. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 103 


and guinea-fowls, and has a life-long acquaintance with 
most of the domestic animals, and, in his judgment, such 
isolation as is referred to above is a preposterous idea. 
Animals may indeed migrate, and in doing so may separ- 
ate; but in all such cases the separation will not be accord- 
ing to peculiarities of color, form or structure. Fach com- 
pany or group will embrace all peculiarities. 

As to physiological selection, which is selective inferti- 
lity, advocated by Romanes and Le Conte, we remark, as 
follows : 

1. This hypothesis is zof proved. Some individuals of 
the same species are indeed infertile with one another. 
But some individuals of every species are absolutely in- 
fertile. But these are exceptional cases, and their cause 
is unknown. Those individuals of the same species that 
are infertile with one another, do not differ from one an- 
other more than do other individuals of the same species. 
Nor do they exhibit nascent peculiarities suggestive of 
newspecies. That these cases of infertility have anything 
to do with the origination of new species is nothing buta 
supposition. 

2. This hypothesis of selective infertility is not accept- 
ed by many evolutionists. 

3. The necessity for this hypothesis is the admitted 
fact of the impossibility of the origin of new species in the 
way indicated by Darwin. 

4. It is quite evident that the proof of this hypothesis, 
as well as the necessity for it, is the fact that Darwinism, 
as taught by Darwin, has to be recognized as a failure. 
Romanes begins his discussion of “physiological selection” 
by declaring that “there are two fatal difficulties against 
natural selection asa sufficient explanation of the origin of 
species.”! Le Conte too admits these difficulties, and 
says of one of them that it has been ‘severely felt by all 
Darwinists.’2 Hence the hypothesis of isolation by se- 
lective infertility. 

Thus we have clear evidence that “the swamping ef- 
fects of free intercrossing” in a state of nature would ren- 
der impossible the production of new species in the way 
proposed by Darwinism, as taught by Darwin. As we 
have showed, this is admitted by Romanes and Le Conte, 
who endeavor to remove the difficulty by proposing amend- 


(1) Darwin and after Darwin, vol.3, p. 41. 
(2) Evolution, &c., p. 76-7. 


104 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


ments to Darwinism, which, however, most other Darwin- 
ists do not accept. The very reason assigned by these 
two distinguished advocates of evolution for the introduc- 
tion oftheir supplementary hypothesis of ‘physiological 
selection,” is the admitted fact that in a state of nature, 
according to Darwinism, as taught by Darwin, the produc- 
tion of new species by natural selection is an impossibility. 

VI. The cell-muking instinct and skill of the hive-bee is 
another of the Darwinian impossibilities. 

The exquisite beauty of the honey-comb and ingenu- 
ity of its structure are universally recognized and admired. 
The bees are correctly said to have solved a difficult math- 
ematical problem in constructing cells in such a way as to 
secure the greatest strength and capacity with the small- 
est expenditure of material. The bottom ofeach cell rests 
on three partitions of cells on the opposite side of the 
comb; and the partitions between the opposing cells are 
composed of rhomboidal planes united at the centre. By 
actual measurement, Miraldi showed that the angles 
formed by the inclination of these planes are 109° 28’ and 70° 
32’, precisely the angles which secure the greatest strength 
and storage capacity with the least work and least expendi- 
ture of material. But, according to the calculation of 
Koenig, the angles should be 109° 26’ and 70° 34’; and for 
some time the discrepancy was explained by the supposi- 
tion that either the bees make a mistake in fixing the 
angles of the rhomboidal planes, or that there had been a 
mistake made in the measurement of them. But Lord 
Brougham, not satisfied with this explanation, applied 
himselfto a fresh investigation of the question, and suc- 
ceeded in showing that, owing to the neglect of certain 
small quantities, the result previously obtained was er- 
roneous to the exact amount of two minutes, the precise 
extent of the discrepancy between the calculation of the 
mathematicians and the angles constructed by the bees. 
Thus it was demonstrated that the bees all the time were 
right, and the mathematicians wrong.! 

Thus it is shown that the bees manifest more than 
human skill and accuracy. They solved a difficult mathe- 
matical problem, in attempting which skilled mathema- 
ticians blundered. Without tools and in the dark, they 
form structures which for beauty, precision and adapta- 


(1) Brougham’s Supplement to Paley’s Nat. Theology, p. 51. 
Carpenter's Human Physiology, p. 643. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 105 


tion can scarcely be equalied by the most experienced and 
skillful artisans, with all their tools and appliances. 

Allthe bees inthe hive, i. e. all the working-bees, 
work together, yet each one works according to its own 
will or instinct ; for it may be said of the bee, as of the 
ant in the book of Proverbs, ‘‘which having no guide, over- 
seer or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer and gath- 
ereth her food in the harvest.”! The queen is not a ruler, 
but a mere breeder. All the working bees must therefore, 
have the same instinct and will. For, the world over, all 
the combs are constructed in the same way, and with the 
same skill and precision. They never disagree, nor make 
mistakes. Yet the working bees, whose ingenuity, skill 
and achievements are so admirable, learn nothing from — 
practice and experience, but act from instinct or native 
genius. They live never more than a few months, and 
only six or seven weeks in the working season. They can- 
not inherit their skill and working instinct; for they are 
the offspring of the queen and a drone, which do no work, 
and which therefore have neither skill nor the working in- 
stinct. The working-bees, though denominated neuters, 
in case there is no queen, produce offspring, but they are 
drones. Hence the skill and working instinct of the bees 
cannot be inherited nor be the result of habit. We hold 
that these facts, viewed in the light of logic and common 
sense, very clearly indicate that the working bee, with its 
exquisite skill and its instinct and habit of industry, can- 
not have originated in the Darwinian way. 

Darwin took in hand this cell-making instinct of the 
bee and tried to account for it by natural selection. His 
effort was simply to show its origin in this way to be fos- 
sible. He succeeded in showing how he himself came to 
believe in such an origin as possible. His argumentation 
demonstrates the fact that he chose thus to believe simply 
because otherwise he would have been compelled to give 
up his favorite hypothesis of natural selection. 

Let us recall the main point in this section. The work- 
ing bees cannot inherit their industrial instinct and artis- 
tic skill from their pareuits, the queen and the drones, be- 
cause these cannot transmit that of which they are entire- 
ly destitute. 

VII. Another impossibility involved in Darwinism is 
the determination of the number of fingers on the human 

(1) Prov. 6:7-8, 


106 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


_hand by natural selection. The normal number is five. But 
there are examples of six-fingered men, Then how has 
the normal number been determined? Why have people 
in general just five fingers, no more and no fewer on each 
hand? The Darwinists are bound to maintain that this 
matter was determined by natural selection and the sur- 
vival of the fittest. But what does this imply? It im- 
plies that people with more or fewer than five fingers on 
each hand were not in harmony with their environment, 
labored under a dlsadvantage in the struggle for existence, 
and so were eliminated. It implies that six-fingered peo- 
ple were handicapped with the super-numerary digit, were 
less vigorous than five-fingered people, did not live so 
long, and had fewer and less healthful children. Thus the 
six-fingered people were crowded out and finally disap- 
peared. But this is absurd. It is impossible that the 
sixth finger should exert so disastrous an influence. This, 
then, is another ofthe impossibilities of Darwinism. 

VIII. Still another is the defermination of the number of 
toes by natural selection. Most quadrupeds that have toes 
have five on each foot both before and behind. But one 
species has five toes to each fore foot and four to each hind 
foot. Several species have four toes to the fore feet and 
five to the hind feet. Some have four toes to each foot 
both before and behind. ‘There are other variations.! To 
say that the number of toes is fixed by natural selection is 
absurd. The attempt to account for the number of toes 
possessed by each species, five before and five behind, 
in some cases, five before and four behind, four before and 
five behind, four both before and behind, and soon, by the 
principle of natural selection, and the weeding out and de- 
struction of all that had not the proper number, leads only 
to contradiction and absurdity. The impossibility of such 
a process is selfevident. But the conception of the world 
as created and managed by an intellectual and moral Being 
with a special view to the development and welfare of the 
human race, and of the complex system of variety in uni- 
formity as well adapted to this purpose,—the conception, 
we say, of a Divinity in the world, thus shaping and ar- 
ranging things for the entertainment and improvement of 
the human n:ind, the greatest thing in this lower world, 
by the harmonious blending of variety in uniformity and 

(1) Agassiz, Essay on Classification, p. 44. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 107 


of invariability with constant change, involves neither ab- 
surdity nor impossibility. It matters little that we cannot 
see in all cases the secondary causes by which God ac- 
complishes his wise and benevolent purposes. 
| IX. Another impossibility is the production of variety 
and peculiarities of colors through natural selection. We 
do not by any means say that a// the claims of Darwinists 
in the matter of color are in themselves unreasonable and 
impossible. It is certainly conceivable that dark-colored 
animals would be at a disadvantage among perpetual 
snows, and hence that they died out in time, leaving the 
snowy regions exclusively to white animals. Nor is it in 
itself incredible that the brown color of rabbits, that live 
in the brush, should have originated in a similar way. We 
might indeed object that, according to this Darwinian 
mode of accounting for the color of animals, jack-rabbits 
that live among the prairie grass, and birds that live in the 
forests, ought to be green, at least in the summer time. 
But color among plants and animals is a matter of minute 
facts, and by these the possibility of Darwinism is to be 
determined. Its theory of color may seem possible and 
plausible when considered in a general and loose sort of 
way; but when applied to particulars, its absurdity and 
impossibility at once begin to appear. For example, how 
could natural: selection produce the short, white tail of the 
rabbit? Indeed the rabbit’s tail, as a rudimentary and 
useless organ, ought, according to Darwinism, to have dis- 
appeared long ago. It was the bounden duty of natural 
selection, instead of furnishing the rabbits with little 
white tails, to have made them without tails at all. Per- 
haps some Darwinist is disposed to fall back on sexual se- 
lection, and to insist that the cotton tail with its graceful 
curl is of nse to the male as an attraction, in courting time, 
to gain the admiration and favor of the female. But both 
males and females have the same kind of tail. Besides, 
they all make their tails most conspicuous when they are 
running away from their enemies. The notion of the pro- 
duction of the white tails of rabbits, through natural selec- 
tion, implies the killing off of all the rabbits with brown 
or black tails, or with tails different from those now fash- 
ionable among brown rabbits. 
Again, natural selection could not produce the pecu- 
liarities of color among birds. We select the woodpecker 
as an example. How is the color of its head to be ac- 


103 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


counted for? Why is its head, and no other part, red? 
To be sure, a red head may be regarded as “a thing of 
beauty and joy for ever,” at least among woodpeckers, and 
hence useful to the male in pairing time. But the female 
woodpeckers have red heads as wellas the males. The 
color of the head is, therefore, not to be attributed to sexual 
selection. Nor is this peculiarity of any conceivable bene- 
fit to its possessor. If the head of the woodpecker were 
white like its breast, or black like its wings, it would be 
just as strong and healthful and just as successful in 
catching worms and insects. 

Darwinism fails also to account for the brilliant and 
beautiful colors of the peacock. The hypothesis of Darwin 
is that these are the results of sexual selection, which 
amounts to this: that the ancient peahens admired and 
favored peacocks with long and variegated tails. Hence 
the peacocks the least gifted in this respect were com- 
pelled to live bachelors and to die without posterity. The 
result was a wonderful increase in the size and variega- 
tion of the peacock’s tail. The facts indicate a remark- 
able eesthetic taste and appreciation on the part of the an- 
cient peahens. As Darwin says, the oval disc or ocellus is 
certainly one of the most beautiful objects in the world, 
consisting of ‘‘an iridescent, intensely blue indented cen- 
ter, surrounded by a rich green zone, this by a broad cop- 
pery-brown zone, and this by five other narrow zones of 
slightly different iridescent shades.” Now, if the Darwin- 
ian hypothesis is true, the ancient peahens must have 
recognized and admired these many different-colored 
zones and different iridescent shades. What wonderful 
eyes those ancient peahens must have had, and what an 
appreciation of different colors and shades, as brought to 
view in Darwin’s account of the evolution of peafowls from 
pheasants or some similar species of birds! Speaking of 
the superior beauty of tail-coverts ornamented with double 
ocelli, he says: ‘Many female progenitors of the peacock 
must, during along line of descent, have appreciated this 
superiority.”! Ofthis account of the evolution of pea- 
fowls, Ruskin wrote as follows: “I am informed only that 
peacocks have grown to be peacocks out of brown pheas- 
ants because the young feminine brown pheasants like fine 
feathers. Whereupon I say to myself, Then either there 
was a distinct species of brown pheasants born with re- 

(1) The Descent of Man, pp. 430, 434. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 109 


markable eyes in their heads,—which would be a much 
more wonderful distinction of species than being born with 
remarkable eyes in their tails,—or else all pheasants would 
have been peacocks by this time! And I trouble myself 
no more about the Darwinian theory.”! 

We will show farther on that the peacocks’ tail gave 
Darwin a great deal of trouble. Thesource of the trouble 
was the difficulty of accounting for the origin of the pea- 
cock’s tail either by natural or sexual selection. The an- 
xiety and annoyance which Darwin experienced from this 
source are demonstrated by the fact that he himself de- 
clared that the very sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail 
made him sick.2 There are perhaps others who, if they 
had the insight and logic of Darwin, would feel very badly 
whenever they should see or think of a peacock’s tail. 

The above facts are presented as illustrations of the 
impossibilities involved in Darwinism. Many other simi- 
lar illustrations might be given. The essence of the Dar- 
'win hypothesis is natural selection, and the main idea in 
natural selection is that it kills off and thus eliminates the 
individuals and species that are destitute of the modifica- 
tions, peculiarities and characteristics which it favors. It 
succeeds only by destroying. It is powerless to produce 
or to promote any thing that is not necessary or useful in 
the struggle for existence. Whatever, therefore, is attribu- 
table to natural selection as its cause, whether a peculiar- 
ity of form, size, color, structure, organ, muscle, bone, 
sinew, teeth, eyes, ears, limbs, fingers, toes, and every- 
thing else, must be considered as having been necessary 
to their po ssessors in so high a degree that without them 
continued existence was impossible. 

Thus it it demonstrated that the possibilities of na- 
tural selection are very limited and its impossibilities ab- 
solutely countless. Countless facts pertaining to form, 
size, color, structure, organs, instincts and babits among 
animals; countless facts in regard to peculiarities among 
plants ; their flowers with petals, sepals, stamens, pistils, 
tints, spots, stripes, shadings, and endless variations; their 
leaves, saw-toothed, dentate, scalloped, sinuate, jagged, 
one'lobed, two-lobed, three-lobed, many-lobed, veined, 

(1) The Eagle’s Nest, or Ten Lectures, before Oxford Unt- 
versity, p- 156. 

(2) See next chapter, and also Darwin’s Life and Letters, vol. 
2, PP. 7, 90. 


[lo COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


feather-veined, radiate-veined, palmate-veined, etc., etc.,— 
all these and countless other variations and peculiarities 
are not only inexplicable, but impossible on the Darwn- 


ian hypothesis. 


CHAPTER IX. 


DARWINIAN ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 





° 


Many of the arguments, which Darwinians are accus- 
tomed to employ in support of their hypothesis have al- 
ready been considered, and in whole or in part answered. 
Hence in regard to some of these arguments nothing, or 
at most, little need now be said. : 

I. The paleontological argument. 

This argument might better be called geological; for 
all the ancient facts employed in its construction are de- 
rived from the science of geology. Darwinists appeal to 
this science for proof of their claim that there has been a 
regular gradation in the order of vital existences. But the 
opponents of Darwinism also appeal to geology to prove 
several points of the greatest argumentative importance, 
such as the sudden and abrupt appearance of species, the 
non-existence of half-formed species, or intermediate forms 
as connecting links between preceding and succeeding 
species, and the co-existence of the most highly organized 
types (as Vertebrates) with the lowest types (as Radiates) 
in the earlier geological ages and in the lower fossiliferous 
strata. The proofs of these points, fatal (if proved) to the 
Darwinian hypothesis, and the admissions of them by Dar- 
winists, have been presented in our 5th chapter. The 
Darwinists, at least many of them, seem to regard the 
palzeontological facts, which geology sets forth, as adverse 
to their views. For, almost their whole argumentation on 
the subject consists in attempts to prove, orrather in as- 
sertions of, great imperfection in the geological record. 
They virtually declare the geological record untrustworthy 
in order to get rid of its testimony againstthem. All this, 
together with the damaging admissions of Le Conte, Dana 
and others in regard tosudden and paroxysmal operations 
and changes, is treated of in the chapter above named, to 


Th? COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


which we refer the reader. ! 
Il. Zhe argument drawn from rudimentary organs. 

This argument we have discussed in our 8th chapter. 
We there have showed that, according tothe principles of 
Darwinism and the admissions of some of theablest of the 
Darwinists, there can not either be nascent or atrophied 
organs. 

Natural selection, we are told, preserves and promotes 
only what is advantageous to its possessor, and makes 
war upon everything thatis injurious, and even upon 
everything that is useless to its possessor, as being a waste 
of material anda hindrance. Buta mere modification, or a 
budding organ, one just commencing ina rising or pro- 
tuberance, cannot be useful or advantageous to its posses- 
sor. Therefore natural selection will operate against it and 
eliminate it. Indeed, according to Darwinism, a nascent 
organ can never get evena start. Those four or five pri- 
mordial forms or one, of which Darwin speaks, could never 
acquire an additional organ. 

So too in regard to disused and useless organs. Since 
they are useless to their possessors, it is claimed natural 
selection atrophies and dwarfs them. But the process 
must go further. These useless organs must be obliter- 
ated, for which due time must of course be allowed. But 
as man and earth’s present fauna, according to the 
showing of Darwinism, have existed for hundreds of thous- 
ands of years, all rudimentary organs must long ago have 
been obliterated and destroyed. Thus both nascent. and 
atrophied organs are alike impossible, according to Dar- 
winism. See chapter 8th as mentioned above. 2 

Ill. Natural malformations and monstrosities. 

These matters are discussed in chapter 6th. 

IV. The morphological argument. 

The basis of this argument is the similarity in the 
structure of organic forms of different species. It-is as- 
sumed that the various kinds of animals would not have 
been similarly constructed ifthey had not been descended 
from the same ancestors. The idea of the Darwinist is 
that similarity of structure is explained by common de- 
scent, and that it can be explained in no other way. Dar- 
win says: 

“What can be more curious than that the hand of a man 


(1 Chap. 5. (2) pp. 333-336. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. igi, 


formed for grasping; that of a mole for digging, the leg ofa 
horse, the paddle of a porpoise, and the wing of the bat, 
should all be constructed on the same pattern?’ Next 
the author declares that nothing can be more hopeless 
than the attempt to explain this similarity of pattern by 
utility, or the doctrine of final causes. Then he affirms 
that the explanation is manifest on the theory of natural 
selection of successive slight modifications, | 

This example of homology is doubtless as good:as can 
be selected. Is the reasoning founded upon it conclusive ? 

The similarity claimed we admit. We do not indeed see 
much similarity between the avd of a man and the /eg of 
a horse, though there certainly is between the avm of a 
man and the /eg ofa horse. We do not see much similarity 
between the Zand ofa mole and the /eg ofa horse, though 
there may be between the former and the hoof of a horse. 
Though, therefore, the statement of Darwin above quoted 
is not marked by his usual accuracy, we admit the simi- 
larities claimed as existing between the organs of animals 
of different species. We claim, however, that these simi- 
larities may be accounted for on the principle of adaptation 
and design. Though the hand of the mole is construct- 
ed on the same pattern with the human hand, the hoof of 
the horse and the paddle of a porpoise, it is perfectly 
adapted to the business of digging and scraping dirt. The 
human arm is none the less useful because it is construct- 
ed like the fore-leg of a horse and the wing of abird. The 
usefulness of none of the homologous organs would be in- 
creased bya difference in construction. They are con- 
structed alike, and ought to be constructed alike, because 
they are to be used in similar or analogous ways. The 
radius and ulna in the fore-leg ofa horse and the arm ofa 
man contribute in both cases to facility of motion and to 
strength. The same is true of the wing of the bat and the 
paddle of the porpoise, and of all other homologous organs, 
The nandles of many different instruments are very much 
alike, for instance, the hoe, the hand-rake and the hay- 
fork. The handles of these implements are made as they 
are, simply with a view to their usefulness; but the result 
is similarity. Their possession of common qualities is no 
evidence that these qualities are inherited from a common 
ancestor; or that they resulted from a desire of the makers 
to have handles look alike; or that they were produced 

(1) Origin of Species, pp. 377-8. 


IT4 _ COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


through some blind principle or.law operating without de- 
sign. Ifthe handles in question were constructed differ- 
ently, they would be less convenient and useful. 

Our further and main reply to Darwin’s morphologic- 
alargument is this, that according to his own hypothesis 
nothing useless can permanently exist in any organic struc- 
ture. 
We have heretofore shown that natural selection pro- 
motes and indeed tolerates only what is advantageous and 
that it makes war upon and eliminates whatever is disad- 
vantageous or useless. A useless organ, or a useless part, 
isa hindrance and a waste of material besides, and there- 
fore cannot endure; in fact could never come into exist- 
ence. According, therefore, to Darwinism, every organ, 
and every part of every organ, in all animal structures is 
useful. When Darwin, therefore, maintains that there are 
in various animals organs, or partsof organs, that cannot 
be accounted for on the ground of utility, and must be ac- 
counted for on the hypothesis of inheritance, he turns 
against his own avowed beliefs and principies. 

As an example of uselessness in organic structures, 
he refers to the skull, and says: 

“Why should the brain be enclosed in a box com- 
posed of such numerous and such extraordinary shaped 
pieces of bone? As Owen has remarked, the benefit de- 
rived from the yielding of the several pieces. in the act of 
parturition of mammals, will by no means explain the con- 
struction in the skulls of birds.” | 

The main point, then, in Darwin’s argument is the as- 
sumption that there are useless bones in the skulls of birds. 
We reply as follows: 

1. According to Darwin’s own teaching there ought to 
be no useless bones in the skulls of birds or of any other 
animals. If there ever had been, natural selection would 
long ago have obliterated them. 

2. Darwin admits that the peculiar construction of the 
skulls of vertebrates facilitates parturition. Hemight even 
have said that it is essentzal to parturition, at least in many 
cases. For were it not for the yielding of the skull, partu- 
rition would perhaps, in a majority of cases, be impossible 
and in all cases would be extremely painful and dangerous. 
Darwin offers, as an offset to this fact, the plea that the 
explanation does not apply to birds, since they are not 

(1) Origin of Species, p. 379 380. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. IT5 


born but hatched. But hatching is analogous to parturi- 
tion. The birth of the bird is consummated when the 
growing chick bursts the egg-shell. This bursting of the 
shell is preceded by compression of the body of the chick. 
but especially ofthe head. The first chipping ofthe shell 
is accomplished by pecking, which requires a movement 
of the head backward end forward. Hence the necessity 
for compressibility in the head of the chick in hatching, as 
well as in the head ofthe fcetus in partuition. This com- 
pressibility is secnred in both mammals and birds by the 
division of the skull into severalparts. Thus is accounted 
for the construction of the skulls ol both classes of ani- 
mals on the same pattern. 

3. The construction ofthe skulls of vertebrates (both 
mammals and birds) out of many pieces of bone is advan- 
tageous not only in parturition and hatching, but after- 
ward. This fact is most evident in the case ef human be- 
ings. The infant skull, which contracts by compression 
in parturition, afterward expands in accordance with the 
natural growth of the brain. Italso gives room for infla- 
mation, to which young children are liable, especially in 
time ofdentition. But when the critical period of childhood 
has passed, and the brain has become well developed, the 
fontanelle hardens and the sutures close, so that the 
skull becomes almost solid bone by the union ofits pieces. 
What is here said of the skulls of human beings applies 
to those of other vertebrates, though in a less marked de- 
gree. All this indicates foresight and design rather than 
the unintentional result of the operation of a mere blind and 
thoughtless abstraction, like natural selection. 

Let it be noted, too, that the formation ofa compressi- 
ble skull, of many bony pieces, in the womb, before the 
compressibility of the skull can be ofany utility, is con- 
trary to Darwinism, which teaches that natural selection 
never anticipates future wants, but fits organisms only for 
their present environment. 

4. Darwin and his followers in this argument presume 
too much on human ignorance as a disproof of facts. They 
assume the uselessness of certain organs or parts of organs 
in the bodies of men and other animals, on the ground 
that their particular use is not perceived. They find cer- 
tain bones ina man’s head or in the fore-leg of a horse, 
which they decide in their own minds have no visible use 
and hence need an apology for their existence. The as- 


116 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


sumption of uselessness in such cases is based simply on 
ignorance. Because they do not know what is the utility 
of some bone, or some part of a bone, or of the division of 
a bone into several pieces, they conclude that there is no 
utility in the case. Thus they make human knowledge 
the test of truth and assume too that what they do not 
now know never can be known. It is thus they reason 
when they conclude that because the particular use of an 
organ or structure is not known, therefore it is useless. 
The impropriety of such reasoning has been recognized 
by some of the ablest Darwinists. Prof. Romanes says: 

“Our inability to detect the use of any given structure 
or instinct is no proof that such a structure or instinct is 
actually useless, seeing that it may very probably possess 
some function hitherto undetected or possibly undetect- 
able.” 1 

The assumption that an organ or structure is useless 
on the ground that its particular use has not been detected 
is especially inexcusable on the part of Darwinists, inas- 
much as their main hypothesis. involves the conclusion 
that no useless organ or structure can permanently exist. 

5. Lastly, Darwin in this argument neither explains 
nor removes the difficulty, but merely pushes it farther 
back. He thinks it useless for men to carry so many 
pieces of bonein their heads. He therefore accounts for the 
phenomenon by supposing that these bones have been en- 
tailed on men by inheritance from ancient and beastly an- 
cestors. But how did these ancestors get these super- 
numerary bones? We have been abundantly taught that 
natural selection never does anything needlessly, and pre- 
serves and increases only the necessary and the useful. 
If the pieces of bone in question are out of place and use- 
less in a man’s head, they could not be proper in the head 
of a tiger, kangaroo, monkey, or other beast. In fact, 
these bones, if useless, could not have been produced by 
natural selection. They must, therefore, have belonged to 
tne four or five primordial forms or one primordial form, 
which Darwin supposes to have been the beginning of the 
organic world. But as God originated these by creation 
(such is the Darwinian hypothesis) they of course pos- 
sessed no organs that were useless. jf 
V. Geographical Distribution. 
It is claimed that the facts which pertain to the dis- 
(1) Darwinand After Darwin, vol. 2, p- 170. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. ba) 


tribution of plants and animals throughout the earth are 
inconsistent with the theory of centers of creation. These 
facts are as follows: the marked difterence between the 
productions of countries that are alike in soil and climate, 
-as for instance the New and Old Worlds; the differences 
between the species on different sides of barriers, such as 
large rivers and ranges of mountains; the great difference 
between the fishes on the western coast of Central Ameri- 
ca and those on the eastern coast, with only a narrow 
isthmus between them; the fact that there is not a single 
mammal common to Europe and South America; ! the 
peculiarites of the faunas of Australia and New Zealand; 
the restriction of humming birds to America, not one of 
the 400 species being found in the Old World; and various 
other facts. 2 

These facts, it is claimed, indicate that the countries 
and lands have been supplied with plants and animals by 
migrations, and the conclusion is drawn that the theory of 
special creation is not true. 

1. It however seems to us that the theory just men- 
tioned is not incompatible with the geographical distribution 
of species or with any of the facts pertaining thereto. 
The theory of special creations involves the notion of cen- 
ters of creation; and centers of creation imply migration. 
Probably no one is absurd enough to imagine a center of 
origin on each side of every wide river, every mountain- 
range, and every other barrier. Species do migrate and 
in migrating do often invade each others’ ranges. No 
hypothesis inconsistent with these well known facts can 
be true. The very idea of centers of creation implies that 
plants and aniinals did not originate everywhere, but only 
at certain points, and that from these points migrations 
took place. In accordance, then, with this hypothesis of 
special creations, there must have been migrations, inva- 
sions by species of each others’ ranges, similar species at 
great distances from one another, dissimilar species near 
one another and even mingled together, and all the phen- 
omena which Darwinists adduce under the head of geo- 
graphical distribution in favor of their hypothesis. 

Even according tothe Biblical account there was at 
one time a single great center. According to that account, 
there was at first but one human pair, and their place of 

(1) Darwin, Origin of Species, pp. 302 9. 
(2) Romanes’ Darwin and afler Darwin, yol, 1, pp. 205°213. 


. 


118 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


residence was the center for at least a large number of the 
lower animals. The Lord God brought the cattle, the 
fowls of the air and the beasts of the field to Adam and he 
namedthem.! Weare notnow quoting the sacred record as 
proof of facts, but merely as showing what the theory of 
special creations is. From Eden, then, as a center, both 
men and the lower animals, at least many of them, migra- 
ted. After the flood, the center was near Ararat, 2? anda 
little later in the land of Shinar.? If the flo6d was uni- 
versal, here was the center for a time not only for the hu- 
man race, but also for the land animals in general. If the 
flood was not universal, Shinar was the temporary center 
for at least a large portion of the lower animals as well as 
for men. From Babel the general dispersion took place, 
a dispersion indeed of men, but also of the animals con- 
nected with them. 4+ Whatever the sceptic may think or - 
say of the historical character of the Bible narrative, he 
cannot but admit that it suggests the dissemination of 
animal life by migrations and dispersions. Besides,as we 
have elsewhere suggested, probably only a single pair of 
each species of animals was at first created. That the lower 
animals were few in number at first is implied in the com- 
mand given to the fishes and (aquatic) fowls: “Be fruitful 
and multiply and fill the waters and let fowl multiply in 
the earth.” 5 This same first command was given to the 
original human pair: “Be fruitful and multiply and re- 
plenish the earth.” 6 We infer, then, that asin the case 
of mankind, so also in the case of the lower animals, but 
a single pair of each species was at first created. 

A geometrical increase of the single pairs would soon 
stock the earth with inhabitants. According to this view, 
all the phenomena of geographical distribution are just as 
well accounted for by the theory of special creations as by 
the Darwinian hypothesis. 

2. There is one fact pretty generally admitted, which 
shows that it makes little difference, so far as the phenom- 
ena of geographical distribution are concerned, whether 
the theory of special creations, or the hypothesis of the 
origin of species by descent, be accepted, and that is 
the fact of the glacial period. In whatever way species 
may have originated, itis evident that the world must have 

i} Gen. 2:19-20. (2) Gen. 8:4. (3) Gen. 1131-2, 

\4) Gen. 11°8-10. 

(5) Gen. 1:22. (6) Gen. 1-28. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY 119 


been stocked with plants and animals mainly by disper- 
sions and migrations after the glacial period. Darwin says 
that during this period Europe and North America suffered 
under an Arctic climate, and that thus the inhabitants of 
the arctic regions and also of the more temperate regions 
were forced to migrate southward. Heaffirms that there 
is evidence of glacial action south of the equator, even as 
far south as New Zealand. He affirms farther that “plants 
and animals, both in the Old and New Worlds, began 
slowly to migrate southwards as the climate became less 
warm, long before the commencement of the glacial 
period.” 1! Both A. R. Wallace and Romanes hold that 
glacial epochs have several times over occurred in tem- 
perate lands and mild climates, and that the effects of such 
great and repeated changes on the migration, modification 
and extinction of species, must have been of overwhelm- 
ing importance. 2 

Now common sense must decide that the effects of in- 
increasing cold and glaciation upon plants and animals 
would be the same, in whatever way they originated, 
whether by special creation or by natural selection. Even 
if animals proceeded from the ground, at God’s fiat, in 
every continent, country, and island, still they would be 
compelled to migrate on the approach of the intense cold 
or to perish imbedded in ice like the extinct mammoths. 
Then on the return of awarmer temperature, the vacant 
regions would be supplied by a second migration. Thus 
all that is claimed for distribution and migration by the 
Darwinists might take place in accordance with the hypo- 
thesis of special and immediate creations. 

3. Ifit is claimed that there are serious difficulties in 
reconciling some of the facts of distribution with the last 
mentioned theory, we reply that the same is true of natur- 
al selection, as has been fully admitted by Darwin himself, 
as follows: ‘‘Undoubtedly there are very many cases of ex- 
treme difficulty”—‘The difficulties encountered are grave 
enough.”—‘“I am far from supposing that all difficulties are 
removed.’—‘‘very many difficulties remain to be solved.” 
—‘T have said that many difficulties remain to be 
solved.”—‘“A far more remarkable case of difficulty’—«I 
do not deny that there are many and great difficulties.” 3 

(1) Origin of Species, pp. 319, 325 


(2) Romanes, Darwin and After Darwin I, p. 207. 
(3) Origin of Species, pp. 307, 331, 345, 400, 


120 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


So far as Distribution as well as other points are con- 
cerned, Darwinism seems to be beset by as many difficul- 
ties as the theory of special creations, if not by more. 
Why is it that so many Darwinians appear to be completely 
oblivious of this fact? 

VI. Classification. The argument drawn from this 
source seems to us to be very weak, and hence we shall 
spend but little time uponit. The argument, as we under- 
stand it, is this: that, if Darwinism, the theory of the 
origin of plants and animals by descent, is true, it would 
furnish a true and convenient principle of classification; 
therefore Darwinism is true. In reply, we say: 

Ist, that we have already a true and convenient prin- 
ciple ot classification, viz., vesemblance. We class together 
things that are alike. 

2nd, The classification of Cuvier is still retained and 
is likely to be. Its author was not a Darwinian, and it | 
was accepted by men who were not Darwinians. It was 
formed and accepted by men who believed in the theory of 
special creations; yet it is admitted to be a true, good and 
convenient classification. There is no pressing need for 
another. 

VII. Zhe embrvological argument. 

This argument, drawn from the similarity of the em- 
bryos of different animals, is analogical; and it is based 
on the principle that things that are known to be: similar 
in some respects are likely to prove similar in others. 
Darwin and his followers reason thus: Theembryos of men 
and other animals are similar, therefore men and other 
animals have the same origin and are descended from 
common ancestors. Or, the argument may be stated thus: 
The human, canine, equine, bovine and porcine embryos 
are all very much alike in their firststages of development, 
therefore men, dogs, horses, cows and swine are all des- 
cendants trom a common parentage for back in the past. 

The strength of the argument depends on the degree 
of similarity. A great deal has been said on this matter 
of embryological resemblances. It has been claimed that 
the human embryo in its development takes on at different 
times the form aud likeness of the fish, reptile, bird and 
quadruped, so that men before their birth resemble in suc- 
cession these several classes of animals. Emphasis is laid 
upon the fact that the human embryo cannot be distin- 
guished at first from that of the dog or of any other ver- 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. wa 


tebrate. Heeckel tries to mortify the pride of aristocrats 
by reminding them that all human embryos, those of 
nobles as well as of commoners, during the first two 
months of development, are very much like “the tailed 
embryo of dogs and other mammals.” ! Heeckel further 
claims that the human embryo in its development passes 
through the same transformations which its animal pro- 
genitors have passed through during immense spaces of 
time, inconceivable agesago.2 This means that man in 
his progressive embryonic state, resembles in turn the va- 
rious orders and classes of animals, from the monad and 
the oyster up to the higher animals; and that when he 
has developed as an embryo into a vertebrate, he succes- 
sively takes on the form and appearance of a fish, reptile, 
a bird and a quadruped. 

Romanes presents similar views as follows: “Man’s 
development starts from the specially elaborated nucleus 
of an egg-cell. When his animality becomes established, 
he exhibits the fundamental anatomical qualities which 
characterize such lowly animals as polyps and jelly-fish. 
And even when he is marked off as a vertebrate, it cannot 
be said whether he is to be a fish, areptile, a bird ora 
beast. Later on, it becomes evident that he is to bea 
maimmial; but not till later still can it be said to which of 
maimmials he belongs.” 3 

To the same effect is the statement of Le Conte: 
“The embryo of a higher animal of any group passes ow 
through stages represented by lower forms, because in its 
evolution (phylogeny) its ancestors did actually have 
these forms.” 4 

Thus the Darwinists maintain that there is an analogy 
between the various stages of development of the human 
foetus and the way in which mankind as arace reached 
their present exalted condition. In this way proof is 
claimed for the Darwinian hypothesis, that man, as re- 
presented in his ancestors, was at one time a beast; at an- 
other, a bird; at another, a reptile; at another, a fish; at an- 
other, a polyp; and at another, an animal still lower. Mr. 
Fiske says: ‘*The human embryo begins to develope as if 
it were going to become a fish; and then changes its course 
and acts as ifit were going to become a reptile or bird; 

(1) Ast. of Creation, vol. 1, p. 295. (27D; 310, 

(3) Darwin and After Darwin, vol. 1, p- 119. 

(4) £volution and tts Relation to Religious Thought, p. 149. 


E22 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


only after much delay it assumes the characteristics of 
mammals.” Such is the embryological argument. 

We think that this argument owes its plausibility, if 
not all its streagth, to exaggeration. More than half the 
facts, on which the argument is Supposed to rest, are im- 
aginary. 

1. The similarity in question is confined to emdéryos 
within the some class. Darwin, whose presentation of facts 
is in general careful and accurate, did not recognize the 
similarity as existing between embryos of different classes, 
thus: “The embryos of distinct animals wz7thin the same 
class are often strikingly similar.” He speaks also of “the 
points of structure, in which the embryos of widely differ- 
ent animals of the same class resemble_each other.” 1 
Agassiz expressed the same idea by saying, ‘‘A vertebrate 
never resembles, at any stage of growth, anything buta 
vertebrate, an Articulate anything but an Articulate, etc. 2 

The testimony of Spencer, as to the j/acts, and we do 
not quote him for the sake of his opznzons, is of similar 
import, but more pointed and decided, as follows: ‘‘Anim- 
pression has been given by those who have popularized 
the statements of embryologists, that during its develop- . 
ment, each higher organization passes through stages in 
which it resembles the adult forms of lower organisms— 
that the embryo of a man is at one time like a fish and at 
another like a reptile. This is not the fact. The fact es- 
tablished is that, up to a certain point, the embryos ofa 
man and a fish continue similar, and that then differences 
begin to appear and increase—the one embryo approach- 
ing more and more towards the form of a fish; the other 
diverging from it more and more. And so with the re- 
semblances to the more advanced types.” 3 

The embryological facts, then, are as follows: 

(a) The similarity of embryos is restricted to animals 
within the same class. It does not cross the lines which 
separate vertebrates, mollusks, articulates and radiates. 

(b) The human embryo in its development does not 
take on in succession the likeness of the lower organisms. 
nor even of the higher, as the fish, reptile, bird and beast. 
In regard to this point, Spencer’s emphatic declaration is, 
“This is not the fact.” He attributes the wrong impres- 


(1) Crigin of Species, pp 381, 382. 
(2) Method of Study, : RP. go- gl. 
(3) Biology, vol. 1, p.1 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 123 


sion to those who have “‘popularized embryology.’ While 
we would not denominate suck scientists as Heeckel,* Ro- 
manes, Fiske and Le Conte mere popularizers of embryo- 
logy, we do not accept as proved and certain what they 
have presented in argumentation, so far as their state- 
ments are virtually and emphatically denied by such men 
as Darwin, Agassiz and Spencer. \ 

(c) All embryos are egg-cells and are at first very much 
alike. As to the embryos of vertebrates, man, beast, bird, 
reptile and fish, of course at first they are scarcely distin- 
guishable. They are more alike at first than they ever 
areafterward. As they develop they diverge more and 
more. As Spencer puts it, the embryos of aman anda 
fish at first are similar; up to a certain point continue 
similar; then differences begin to appear, the one approxi- 
mating more and more towards the form of a fish, the 
other diverging from it more and more.! Thus embry- 
onic development is a process of differentiation. The simi- 
larity of embryos is destroyed by development. The only 
fact, then, which which we have to deal with is this, that 
embryos at first and before development are similar. 

2. Taking up this one fact, the question to be deter- 
/ mined is whether the similarity that exists between em- 
bryos before development provesor tends to prove that all 
animals have had acommon descent. Does the fact that 
the human, canine and piscine embryos are originally 
alike prove that men, dogs, and fishes are descended from 
the same ancestors? 

It is important to remember that in this case asin 
many others the similarity is only in appearance. After 
all, embryos do differ as is demonstrated by the fact that 
different kinds of animals are produced from them. Dif- 
ference in results proves a difference in antecedents and 
causes. The fact that differences between embryos do not 
appear before development cuts no figure in the case. 
The infant cubs of the bear and tiger are gentle as lambs. 
The difference between a wise man anda fool is not dis- 
coverable by the eye or the microscope. The differences 
between things are shown by development and its results. 
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” So the similarity 
of ‘egg-cells is only apparent, as is demonstrated by results. 
Undeveloped embryos seem alike as objects seen indis- 
tinctly. A mule, a horse, a cow, a gate-postand a man all 

(1) Biology, Vol. 1, p. 143. 


Leet COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


look very much alike, when seen at a distance. Ona 
nearer view the similarity disappears, and they are seen 
to be different. As the beholder approaches these ob- 
jects, the man does not put off the appearance of the inule, 
cow, horse and gate-post, but he simply takes on more and 
more his own proper appearance; so of all the rest. Just 
as the human, canine, equine and bovine embryos develop, 
their differences become perceptible. Itis unscientific and 
absurd todeny the reality of these differences simply be- 
cause they are not at first visible to the human eye. 

3. The fact that the similarity of embryos is within the 
same class, and that the embryos of vertebrates, mollusks, 
articulates and radiates are not very similar, completely 
upsets the argument, so far as the doctrine of universal 
evolution is concerned. The argument is that, since man 
and the other vertebrate animals are alike in their em- 
‘ bryonic state, therefore they are all descended from common 
ancestors. But by parity of reasoning, since the embryos 
of man and the other vertebrates differ from the embryos 
of the mollusks, therefore vertebrates and mollusks are not 
descended from common ancestors. The argument cuts 
both ways; it proves too much for the thorough-going evo- 
lutionist. If resemblance of embryos by analogy suggests 
sameness of descent, then unlikeness of embryos certainly 
suggests difference of descent. And, since embryonic re- 
semblance does not cross ‘the lines which separate the 
four great classes of animals, it follows, if the argument 
we are dealing with isa valid one, that all the animals 
have not a common parentage, but are descended from four 
original progenitors, or have been evolved out of four 
primordial forins. Thus four breaks or chasms would have 
to be admitted in the descent of animals. All this might 
be accepted perhaps in accordance with Darwin’s sugges- 
tion of the derivation of species from a few primordial 
forms, but of course is intolerable to evolutionists of the 
more modern school. 

4. This is an analogical argument. It is founded on 
the principle that things that are similar in one respect are 
likely to be similar in others. Thus it is supposed that 
' because men and other vertebrate animals are similar in 
their embryonic state, therefore they are all descendants 
from the same ancestors. 

It seems to us that a better analogical argument may 
be drawn, in favor, of evolution, from the fact that all the 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 125 


individuals of every species originate by a process of evo- 
lution. This is an incontrovertible fact, and furnishes an 
indisputable basis for an analogical argument to prove 
that the human race and every species originated by evo- 
lution; thus the individuals, which now constitute every 
species, being derived from parents, originate by a process © 
of evolution, therefore the species were derived by a pro- 
cess of evolution from preceding species. This argument 
shows or at least suggests that evolution is possible, and 
that it is a reasonable hypothesis. 

But the evidential value of analogy is very much over- 
rated. It suggests possibility and may be successfully 
employed in the way of refutation, but is almost worthless 
as an argument for the establishment of any truth. Analo- 
gy sometimes creates apresumption or a slight degree of 
probability ; but it often suggests nothing more than a 
mere possibility. All the force which it may have as an 
argument, on either side of a question, is entirely overcome 
by the smallest amount of positive counter evidence. 

The reason of this is that there are so many irregulari- 
ties in nature. Very often the discovery of new facts sets 
analogies and probabilities at defiance. How often do the 
improbable and the unexpected take place! 

In all the departments of nature there are frequent 
-divergences from analogy. In most ofthe vegetable species, 
reproduction is by the asexual process. But in some of 
the vegetable species there are males and females, a diver- 
gence from analogy. According to analogy all terrestial 
flowers should have nectar, but some are entirely destitute 
of it. According to analogy, acorns and hickory-nuts 
should grow on crawling vines or small plants, but pump- 
kins and gourds on oaks and elms. If the anti-teleologists 
are right, the danger of people having their heads broken 
by the fall of large fruits from the tops of tall trees had 
nothing to do in causing the present arrangement, by 
which little fruits grow on large trees and large fruits on 
little plants. The existence of one mother (called the 
queen), hundreds of drones and thousands of working 
neuters in each hive of bees is contrary to all analogy. A 
very similar anomaly is found among the white ants called 
Termites, in each nest of which propagation is carried on 
by a single pair called king and queen, or father and moth- 
er, the latter of which lays an egg every minute. The bee 


126 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


communities present many additional anomalies.! The 
polyandry of queens, each having several hundred hus- 
bands; the fertility of unimpregnated queens; their con- 
tinued fertility from the one impregnation; the loss of life 
by the drone in the act of impregnation; the fertility of 
the working bees, called neuters, without impregnation, in 
the absence or disability of the queen; the fertility of the 
unimpregnated queen and of the neuters resulting in the 
production only of drones; the killing of the drones by the 
workers at the close of the breeding and working season; 
—all these facts are contradictions to analogy. 

Nearly all birds make each its own nest, and havea 
strong parental instinct. But the cuckoo lays its eggs in 
the nests of other birds and takes no care of its offspring. 
The most of the fishes deposit their eggs in nests, or in 
suitable places for hatching, but the eggs of the hippo- 
campus (pipe-fish) are carried about by the male in a cau- 
dal pouch, or in hemispherical pits in its skin. The eggs 
of the Arius Boakeii are carried in the mouth of the male 
until they are hatched. 2 

All these facts are entirely contrary to analogy. They 
are just such as we would not expect, judging from pre- 
viously known facts. 

But we find also that in the astronomical world irregu- 
larities are not infrequent. According to analogy, Jupiter 
ought to have but four satellites, whereas it has five. Ac- 
cording to analogy, the earth having one satellite, Mars 
2, Jupiter 5, Saturn 8, Uranus ought to have 16 or 18 
satellites, and Neptune 32 or more; whereas Uranus has 
but four known satellites and Neptune but one. Nearly 
all the bodies of the solar system revolve from west to 
east, and reasoning analogically from known facts we 
would conclude that all the planets and their satellites, 
and probably all the celestial bodies, revolve in the same 
direction. Butit is now ascertained that this analogy 
must be set aside inthe case of the four satellites of Uranus 
and the one satellite of Neptune, which revolve from east 
to west. Judging by analogy, we would expect to find be- 
tween Mars and Jupiter, a planet of intermediate size, in 
the region of the asteroids. But no such planet is found. 
It has indeed been suggested, in order to preserve the 
analogy, that the asteroids are the shattered fragments of 


(1) See chapter 6th, pp. 289-297. 
(2) Spencer &7o/. vol. 2, p. 415. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 127 


a former planet. But be it so; the hypothesis does in- 
deed save the analogy at one point, but only to break it at 
another. Fora shattered planet is a great anomaly. Cer- 
tainly neither planets nor fixed stars have often exploded. 

Such facts, many more of which might be presented, 
indicate that, while in general, regularity and uniformity 
prevailin the world, at the same time we need never go 
very far to find irregularities and anomalies. There are 
laws that are inflexibly uniform in their operation, as the 
law of gravitation, laws of attraction, the chemical laws of 
affinity, etc. But the law of analogy is not of this sort. 
Indeed analogy is not a law at allin the proper sense of 
the word. Aswe have shown above, so far as the estab- 
lishment of truth is concerned, analogy is a fallacious 
guide. Its main use in the discovery of truth is by way of 
suggesting possibilities and hypotheses. Analogy sug- 
gests that other planets beside the earth may have inhabi- 
tants, but does not prove it. Analogy suggests that, as 
the satellites circulate round their primaries, and the 
primaries round the sun, so the sun and the whole solar 
system circulate round some unknown central body, and 
that unknown central body round a larger unknown cen- 
tral body, and soon. Analogy furnishes this conjecture, 
but does not furnish proof. So analogy suggests that as 
each individual of every species is derived from preceding 
individuals by an evolutionary process, so may each species 
have been evolved from preceding species. Analogy fur- 
nishes the hypothesis and suggests the possibility of evo- 
lution, but furnishes no proof of its actuality. 

By means of analogy some remarkable predictions, or 
rather happy guesses, have been made. Voltairein his W/c- 
romegas, A. D. 1750, represents his travelers as visiting 
the planet Mars; and, although remaining on it but a 
short time because of their fear that they might not find 
sleeping-room, as discovering that it was attended by two 
satellites. Dean Swift, in his Gzudliver's Travels (1726) 
represents the astronomers of Laputa as having, with 
their superior glasses, discovered two satellites of Mars. 
It is certainly remarkable that Voltaire and Swift did thus 
anticipate the discovery of these two satellites. But they 
reasoned from false premises, In their time Jupiter was 
supposed to have but four satellites, the fifth not being dis- 
covered till 1892. Hence they reasoned thus: the earth 
has one satellite and Jupiter four; therefore Mars, the in- 


128 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


termediate planet, has two. The conclusion was indeed 
correct, but was reached through mistake. The knowledge 
of the real number of Jupiter’s satellites would have spoiled 
the proportion. According tothe present proportion, Ura- 
nus ought to have sixteen satellites at least, twice as many 
as Saturn ; but it has, so far as known, only four. 

We have thus spoken of the uncertainty of analogy as 
a source of proof and argument, for the reason that, though 
Darwin expressly declares that “analogy may be a deceit- 
ful guide,”! there are many Darwinians, able and learned 
men, who rely largely upon it as proof of their hypothesis. 
These in their argumentation say again and again, in sub- 
stance, often in express terms: “If Darwinism be true, we 
would expect to find things so and so, and we are not dis- 
appointed.” In all such reasoning the appeal is to analo- 
gy, with all its uncertainty and its liability to be set aside 
by experiment, observation, discovery or other form of 
positive evidence. 

VIII. There is one more argument which Darwinists 
are accustomed to employ in favor of their hypothesis, and 
it is this: that we must accept Darwinis.n or we will have 
neither theory or hypothesis to account for the origin of 
species. This argument is generally presented with spe- 
cial reference to the theory of special creations, in some 
such way as follows: there are but two hypotheses pro- 
posed to account for the origin of species—sfecial creations 
and zatural selection. Butthe former is out of the ques- 
tion ; it ig abandoned or soon will be and ought to be. It 
is now either natural selection or nothing. Hence we 
must accept natural selection. 

But even if the falsity of the theory of special creations 
were clearly demonstrated, it would not follow that Dar- 
winism is true. It may bethat both the one and theother . 
is untrue. Most assuredly the admitted or demonstrated 
falsity of the one does not prove the correctness of the 
other. Ifamurder has been committed, and only two 
men are suspected of the perpetration of the crime, the 
fact that one of. them is shown to be innocent does not 
prove the guilt ofthe other. It would not be well to urge 
that we must believe the second man to be guilty on the 
ground that otherwise we could not even guess who com- 
mitted the murder. If there are but two proposed ways 
of going to the North Pole, and it should be demonstrated 


(1) Origtn of Species, p. 419. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. B2Z0%; 


that one of these ways is impracticable, it does not follow 
that we must endeavor to reach the North Pole by the 
other. Perhaps a third and better way will be discovered. 
In the meantime we would perhaps better stay at home 
and make no effort to go to the North Pole. We do not, 
then, accept the dictum of Spencer that, “We have to 
choose between two hypotheses—the hypothesis of special 
creation and the hypothesis of evolution.”! We may re- 
ject both alternatives, and wait for a third hypothesis. 

But, after all, there is something to be said, and a good 
deal to be said, in favor of the theory of special creations, 
as we endeavor to show in a succeeding chapter. 2 


(1) Biology, vol. p. 331. 
(2) See Chapter VII. 


CHAPTER’ X; 





DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 





It is claimed, in behalf of Darwinism, by some of its 
advocates, and only by some of them, not, as we think, a 
majority, that it has destroyed teleology, at least that 
branch of it which teaches that the various adaptations 
and contrivances in nature indicate design, and thus prove 
the existence of a rational and intelligent Creator and 
Ruler of the universe. Huxley at one time claimed that 
Heeckel, ot Germany, had given “the death blow to teleo- 
logy.” 1 Similar language was employed by Prof. Romanes 
during the time of the eclipse of his Christian faith. 
Among other things he said that the evidences of design, 
including the evidences of beneficence, have been tapped 
at their fountain-head by Darwinism, and that the appear- 
ance of any future Paley, Bell or Chalmers has been made 
impossible. 2 Fiske affirms that teleology ‘rests on a rot- 
ten foundation;” ® proclaims that “natural selection has 
dealt destruction to the theistic arguments of Paley and 
the Bridgewater Treatises.” 4 Prof. Le Conte decides that 
“evolution has destroyed forever” what he contemptuous- 
ly describes as “the man-like, cabinet-making, watch-mak- 
ing design of Paley and older writers—a separate petty 
design for each separate object.” ® 

Spencer, who sets the fashion for so many talkers and 
writers, oraculously pronounces teleology a failure. Speak- 
ing of rudimentary organs he says: “Here, as before, the 
teleological doctrine utterly fails.” 6 

Such is the attitude of some evolutionists and Dar- 
winists toward teleology. Is the claim thus put forward 


(1) Critiquesand Addresses, pp. 272. 

(2) Darwin and After Darwin, Vol. 2..pp.4Ii-2 
(3) Cosmic Philos. Vol. 2, p. 286. 

(4) Idea of God, p. 129. 

(5) Hvolution etc., p. 357. 

(6) Biology, vol I, p. 386. 


COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 13.1 


correct? Has the argument drawn from evidences of de- 
sign in nature to prove the existence of God been nullified 
and destroyed ? | 

We hold that teleology has not been and cannot be 
destroyed; that it is established on sure foundations; and 
that whatever comes in conflict with it ought to be and 
will be rejected. If, then, Darwinism be in any degree 
anti-teleologial, which, however, we do not affirm, it ought 
to be, and will be, rejected; or must be modified so as to 
harmonize with the facts and truths of teleology. 

I. TZeleology ts a well established truth. 

The history of human opinions shows that belief in 
design as manifested in nature, like belief in God, human 
responsibility, and the immortality of the soul, ave foo 
deeply imbedded in the human mind ever to be eradicated. 

The teleological argument has been accepted and em- 
ployed by the most learned and ablest men both of ancient 
and modern times. Belief in it has not been confined to 
the learned. It appeals to the common sense of the great 
mass of mankind; and, to this day, it is one of the strong- 
est popular arguments against atheism. 

1. Teleological views appear in the Old Testament 
Scriptures. The old Hebrew writers believed in /xal 
causes, aS is Shown by such declarations as these: “He 
that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed 
the eye, shall he not see?” 1 Similar ideas are expressed 
elsewhere in the Psalms ? and also inthe book of Job. 3 

2. The best and ablest Greek philosophers were teleo- 
logists. Socrates referred to the construction of the 
human body—the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, teeth and other 
organs, as proofs of contrivance and wisdom. After refer- 
ring to the structure ot the eye; to the eyelids, opening like 
doors when needful and closing at the approach of sleep; 
to the eye-lashes, guarding the eye and, like a fence, keep- 
ing off wind and dust; to the eye-brows, prepared asa 
kind of shed to turn off the perspiration which otherwise 
would enter and injure the tender organ; to the teeth, 
some in front suited to cutting, and some back in the 
mouth suited to masticating; to the mouth, so situated 
that nothing can enter it without passing near the nose 
and eyes for the detection of unsuitable food; and to other 
adaptations and adjustments, he then asked if it is possi- 
ble to doubt that such an arrangement of parts is the work, 

(1) Ps. 94:9. (2) Ps. 19 and 104. (3) Chaps. 28, 39. 


L32 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


not of chance, but of wise and benevolent design. By 
such illustrations, the great philosopher of common sense 
is represented by Xenophen as bringing his pupil Aristo- 
demus to declare his belief in the existence of a wise and 
benevolent Creator. “I have no longer any doubt (re- 
plied Aristodemus), and indeed the more I consider it, the 
more evident it appears to me that man must be the master- 
piece of some great artificer, manifesting unmistakable 
marks of the love and favor of the maker.” Socrates 
further taught that as the eye of man sees many objects, 
and as the soul governs the body, “so there is a Being 
whose eye pierces through all nature, whose ear hears 
every sound, and whose bounty and care are co-extensive 
with the creation.” ! 

Such are the teleological views held and taught by 
Socrates. It is well known that similar views were held 
by Plato, his pupil and friend. Teleological ideas abound 
in some of his writings, especially in the Timzeus. All 
through this book, with constant recurrence, are found 
such thoughts as can be translated into English only by 
such words as God, Deity, Divinity, Divine, God of Gods, 
Creator, Maker, Artificer, design, purpose, contrivance, pat- 
tern, plan, model. Vike Socrates, but much more exten- 
sively, he illustrates by examples drawn from human 
physiology. Hesays, “Our Creator planted the human 
head with hairs in order to guard the brain and protect it 
from the extremes of heat and cold.’ He speaks of the 
purpose of the liver; the purpose of the intestines; and the 
purposes of mouth, teeth, tongue, lips and other organs. 2 
Thus he specifies the most of the organs and parts of the 
human body, accounting for them on teleological grounds. ® 
The way in which he speaks of God as the Artificer of the 
universe, planning and constructing according to his own 
far-seeing wisdom, and making everything to accomplish a 
beneficent and beautiful design, is of course distasteful to 
that class of Darwinists who make an outcry against what 
they call anthropomorphism in teleology. 

Aristotle also, who represents the culmination of 
Grecian thought, récognized design or purpose as one of 
the four kinds of cause. He identified the final cause of a 
thing, or the reason for its existence, with the good, the 
end aimed at by God, the First Cause, or Prime Mover. 4 


(1) Memorabilia, 1:4. (2) Timaeus, 47, 52, 53. (3) 16. 
(4) Metaphys, I, 2, 3; XI, 7. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 133 


Neither Socrates, Plato, nor Aristotle referred express- 
ly to mechanical contrivance exhibited in human machi- 
nery, in order to illustrate or establish the teleological idea. 

3. This, however, was done by Cicero. The watch was 
not employed by him as an illustration, for in his time the 
watch wasunknown. But the clock is found among his 
many illustrations of design and contrivance—‘‘How hap- 
pens it that when you view an image or picture, you im- 
agine itis wrought by art; when you behold afar offa 
ship moving in its course, you do not doubt but that it is 
steered by wisdom and skill; when you see a dial ora 
clock, you understand the hours are declared by art, not 
by chance; and yet you should think that the world, which 
contains all these arts and artificers, is void of design and 
reason.” Cicero further referred to what now would be 
called an orrery, but which he described as a sphere, in- 
vented by Posidonius to show the movements of the sun, 
moon and planets. He supposed this instrument to be 
carried to Scythia or Britain, and asked, who in those _bar- 
barous countries would doubt its having been constructed 
by intelligence? He next adverted to the Epicureans, 
“who doubt whether the universe is not the effect of chance 
or necessity rather than the work of reason anda divine 
mind, and who think the imitations of the revolutions of 
the celestial bodies display more ability than the produc- 
tion of them by nature.”! 

4. The teleological argument has been accepted by zear- 
ly all the great thinkers of Christendom in times preceding 
our own, or, rather should we say that xeurly all the people 
of Christendom, unlearned and learned alike, have in past 
times held the teleological tdea. For the belief has been 
almost universal that the wisdom of God is manifested 
and proved by what are called the works of nature. But 
wisdom is the ability to employ and adapt means to ac- 
complish good purposes. 

As a matter of fact, then, we must consider as tele- 
ologists the fathers and leaders of the early Christian 
church; the theologians of the middle age; the reformers 
of the 16th century; the theologians both Protestant and 
Cathclic; the philosophers, scientists, and the literary men 
in general, together with the great mass of enlightened 
people for eighteen hundred years. About the only excep-. 
tion among the thinkers of the past age was Kant, who 


(1) De Natura Deorum, 2:34. 


134 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC. 


cast doubts upon the teleological as well as upon other 
arguments in favor of the existence of God. 

It is indeed sometimes claimed or suggested that at 
least one other of the great thinkers of the past was op- 
posed to teleology. We refer to Bacon, who is often 
quoted or alluded to as condemning final causes. «He 
certainly did condemn, and in very strong terms, the abuse 
of this doctrine, but not the doctrine itself, nor its proper 
use. He declares that teleology (finales causze) not only 
has in many cases rendered science unfruitful, but has even 
wonderfully corrupted philosophy. \ But this mischief he 
attributes not to final causes themselves, but to their miis- 
use; viz, the mixing of them up with physical enquiries, 
as by Plato and Aristotle. After specifying many examples 
of design and condemning the intermingling of such tele- 
ological facts with physical and secondary causes, he im- 
mediately adds, ‘‘WVot because these final causes are not true 
and worthy of being investigated, but are injurious outside of 
their province.’ * After all then, the father of the induc- 
tive philosophy believed in the excellence and usefulness 
of teleology, when rightly handled. Francis Bacon 
thought in this manner—‘I had rather believe all the 
fables in the legend and the Talmud, and Alcoran than 
that this universal frame is without a mind.” 3 

5. Very many of the modern sceptics called Deists, and 
even the most distinguished of them, have recognized the 
validity of the teleological argument. 

Of this class was Lord Bolingbroke of England. This 
man was certainly neither superstitious nor prejudiced in 
favor of teleology. He was thoroughly sceptical though a 
Deist. He was of the class who are often called infidels. 
His “Philosophical Works,” in five volumes, are a contiued 
attack on Christianity. Yet he advocated Theism and 
divided denunciation and abuse between the clergy and the 
atheists. He abused nearly everybody with whom he dif- 
fered. Leslie Stephen, a thorough-going Agnostic, says: 
“Bolingbroke succeeds in calling everybody who differs 
from him fool, knave or madman.” 4 He professedly labor- 
ed to vindicate the character and works of God against 
“the attacks of atheists and divines.” He wasa thorough- 

(1) Phosophiam miris modis corripuerunt. (Novum Orga- 
num 1:48). 

(3) Essay 16, on Atheism. (2) De Augmentts, lib 3, cap. 4, 

(4) Hist.of Eng. Thought, volt. p. 177. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 135 


going teleologist. Referring to what Cicero said concern- 
ing the sphere of Posidonius, he declares that if the orrery 
were sent in our days to the Hottentots, ‘these savages 
would smile at the stupidity of any of their brethren, if 
any so stupid should be found among savages, who could 
imagine such a machine to be the effect of chance, or to 
' have contrived and made itself.’ 1 He also reproduces 
the illustration of the clock and declares that as the ad- 
aptation of means to ends in its construction proves the 
intelligence of the workman, so the adaptation of means 
to ends in the universe indicates the wisdom of the 
Creator. 

Lord Herbert of Cherbury, another distinguished Eng- 
lis Deist, though sceptical in regard to Christianity, accept- 
ed and relied on the teleological argument as proof of the 
existence and moral character of God. Hallam declares it 
to be a remarkable fact that Lord Herbert in his “De Re- 
ligione Gentilium’ employed the same illustration which 
was afterword employed by Paley in his presentation of 
the teleological argument. 

Voltaire also anticipated Paley in the use of the illus- 
tration of the watch. Whatever may have been the charac- 
ter and opinions of this famous Frenchman, he never was 
an advocate of atheism. He denounced atheism and fana- 
ticism both as monsters. When comparatively a young 
man, he presented, in his “7veatise on Metaphysics,’ the 
teleological argument for the existence of God. To theism 
and teleology he adhered all his life. Parton says: “7he 
watch proves the watch-maker, was his constant argument 
for the existence of God, at every point of his life, and he 
developed it in his treatise some years before Paley was 
born.” 2 

Hume was equally decided in his acceptance and 
avowal of theism and teleology. ‘The whole frame of 
nature bespeaks an Intelligent Author; and no rational in- 
quirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his beliefa 
moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine 
Theism and Religion.” And again: ‘Though the stupidity 
of men, barbarous and uninstructed, be so great that they 
may not see a Sovereign Author in the more obvious works 
of nature to which they are so much familiarized, yet it 


(1) Phil. Works, vol. 4, p- 158. 
(2) Parton’s Life of Voltaire, vol. 1, p. 333. 


136 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


scarcely seems possible that anyone of good understand- 
ing should reject that idea, when once it is suggested to 
him. A purpose, an intention, a design is evident in 
everything; and when our comprehension is so far en- 
larged as to contemplate the first rise of this visible sys- 
tem, we must adopt, with the strongest conviction, the 
idea of some intelligent cause or author.” * * ie = 
‘What a noble privilege is it of human reason to attain the 
knowledge of the Supreme Being; and from the visible 
works of nature, be enabled to infer so sublime a princi- 
ple as its supreme Creator?” 1 

We call special attention to the declaration—“A pur- 
pose, an intention, a design ts evident tn everything.’ 

Thomas Paine, though he perhaps did not know the 
meaning of the word teleology, gave expression to tele- 
ological sentiments, as follows: “The true Deist has but 
one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the 
power, wisdom and benignity of the Deity in his works, 
and in endeavoring to imitate him in every thing moral, 
scientifical and mechanical.’’—“The Creator made nothing 
in vain.” —“When we examine an extraordinary piece of 
machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well exe- 
cuted statue, or ahighly finished painting, * * * our 
ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius 
and talents of the artists. * -* * How then is it, «that 
when we study the works of Godin Creation, we stop 
short, and do not think of God?” 2 

Another of the famous sceptics of modern times, J. S. 
Mill, after years of investigation and reflection, accepted 
the teleological argument as legitimate and valid. He was 
from childhood indoctrinated by his father in atheism, and 
he remained an atheist till near the close of his life. Rut 
in his ‘“7hree Essays,” written not long before his death, 
with a view to setting forth his most mature opinions, he 
declared that “the adaptations in Nature afford a large 
balance of probability in favor of creation by intelligence.” 
This large balance of probability in favor of the existence 
of a Creator he attributes mainly to the argument from 
marks of design. Though he says the force of this argu- 
ment is generally overrated, yet he declares it to be “an 


E (1) Hume’s Zssays.—The Nat. Hist of Religion, Introd., and 
ec. AY. 

_ (2) Age of Reason, Discourse to Soc. of Theophilanthropists 
Paine’s Works, pp. 41, 46, 291. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. Lay 


argument of really scientific character, which does not 
shrink from scientifictests.” He further declares that “the 
argument is not one of mere analogy. As mereanalogy it 
has its weight, but it is more than analogy. It surpasses 
analogy exactly as induction surpasses it. It is an induc- 
tive argument.’ 1 There are several considerations that 
impart great value to Mills’ judgment in this matter: (1), 
his previous life of scepticism and atheism ; (2), his ability as 
logician, as shown by his elaborate work on logic; (3), his 
acquaintance with, and acceptance of, Darwinism and of 
the doctrine of ‘‘the survival of the fittest.” 2 There is not 
the shadow of a ground in his case for the charge of ignor- 
ance, prejudice, or theological bias. His clear, calm and 
dispassionate treatment of the subject is in marked con- 
trast with the course of many on the other side, who as- 
sume and assert and keep on asserting that Paley’s argu- 
ment has been destroyed. 
6. A majority of the most distinguished scientists of our 

age have accepted teleological views. 

On this point we quote the following declaration of 
Prof. Cocker, of Michigan University: ~ 

“The belief that a principle of adaptation to special 
ends pervades allexistence, and that it must be assumed as 
the ground of the scientific explanation of the facts and 
phenomena of the universe, is avowed by the first scientists 
of the age.” 3 

One of these scientists who thus avow the teleologi- 
cal belief is Prof. Cocker himself. Another is Lord Kel- 
vin (Sir William Thompson), who, in his inaugural address 
at the meeting of the British Association of Science at 
Edinburgh, said: “I feel profoundly convinced that the 
argument from design has been greatly lost sight of in re- 
cent speculations. * * * Overwhelmingly strong proofs 
of Intelligence and Benevolent Design lie all around us; 
and if ever perplexities, whether of a metaphysical or scien- 
tific character, turn us away for atime, they will come 
back upon us with irresistible force, showing us through 
nature the influence of a /ree Will, and teaching us that 
all living beings depend upon one ever-acting Cveator and 
Ruler.’ Another of these teleological scientists was 
Agassiz. Weneed but name him. Another was Hugh 

(1) Three Essays on Religion, pp. 167. 168, 170. 

(2) Three Essays on Religion, p. 172. 

(3) The Theistic Conception of the World, p. 129. 


138 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


Miller. Another was Dr. Hitchcock, President of Amherst 
College, Professor of geology and natural theology, and 
author of a work on geology.! Another was Dr. McCosh, 
_late President of Princeton University, author of many 
very able works, not a determined opponent of Darwinism, 
but a thorough-going defender of teleology and the argu- 
ment from design. Another was Professor Jevons of Uni- 
versity College, London, an evolutionist and Darwinist, who 
says: “So far as we can see, infinitely diverse living creat- 
ures might have been created consistently with the theory 
of evolution, and the precise reason why we have a back- 
bone, two hands with opposable thumbs, an erect stature, 
a complex brain, about 223 bones, and many other peculi- 
arities, is only to be found in the original act of creation. 
I do not, any less than Paley, believe that the eye of man 
manifests design.” He also speaks of the causes which 
produced the eye as being “subject to the arbitrary choice 
of the Creator.” 2 

Another of the scientific teleologists is Prof. J. Par- 
sons Cooke, LL. D., Professor of chemistry and minera- 
logy in Harvard University. In his work, published in 
1864, but re-written and re-published in 1880, entitled, 
“Religion and Chemistry, a Restatement of an old Argu- 
ment,” he says: “Paley has compared the mechanism of 
nature to a watch, and, so far as the argument for design 
is concerned, the_analogy is perfect.” He further says: 
“The unity of design implies the oneness of the designer, 
and although the adaptations just considered may not ex- 
clude every possible atheistic theory of cosmogony, yet they 
show conclusively that, if there is design anywhere, there 
is design everywhere; if there is design in the least, there 
is design also in the greatest, and design in the atom may 
thus confirm the evidence of design in man.” 3 

Among the teleologists are also to be counted Prof. 
Gray, Professor of Botany in Harvard University; Prof. 
Winchell, of Michigan University; Prof. Dana, of Yale; 
Prof. Guyot, of Princeton University; Sir J. W. Dawson, 
LL.D., F. R. S., Principal and Vice-Chancelor of McGill 
University, Montreal, Canada. Of these, Gray and Dana 
are favorable to the doctrine of evolution. Dawson isa 
decided opponent of Darwinism. 

(1) See his ‘Religion of Geology,’ Lect. VII. 

(2) The Princtptes of Seience, p. 763. 

(3) Religion and Chemistry, pp. 30, 64. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 139 


Such are some of the facts embraced in the history of 
teleology. Our list of teleologists, including those that 
have held teleological ideas as well as those that have ac- 
cepted the argument from design, is as follows : 

1. Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul and the Hebrew writers 
in general. 

2. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers 
among the ancient Grecians. 

3. Cicero, the most cultured man among the ancient 
Romans. 

4. Irenzeus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Augustine, 
and in general the fathers and leaders of the early Chris- 
tian church. 

. Anselm, Bernard, Abelard, Aquinas, and in general 
the theological chiefs of the middle age. 

6. Philosophers, scientists and literary men of a later 
age—Bacon, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, 
Cuvier, Leibnitz, Locke; Boyle, Bentley, Reid, D. Stewart, 
Shakespeare, Milton, Moliere, Le Sage, Saint Pierre, Beattie, 
and many others. 

7. Theablest and most distinguished sceptics—Voltaire, 
Hume, Rousseau, Paine, Lord Herbert, Bolingbroke and 
John S. Mill. 

8. Statesmen—Cromwell, William of Orange, Grotius, 
Burke, Brougham, Webster, Lincoln, Bright, Gladstone. 

9. Modern theologians—Luther, Calvin, Knox, Mel- 
ancthon, Turretine, Edwards, Butler, Paley, Chalmers, 
Fenelon, Bellarmine, Owen, Howe, Cudworth, Barrow, 
Charnock, Robert Hall, Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Wesley, 
Watson, Hodge, Whewell, Dick, Wood, the Alexanders, 
Mason, Guthrie, Shedd, Kurtz, Flint, Breckinridge, Chan- 
ning, Dabney, Peabody, Calderwood, Spurgeon. 

10. Philosophers, scientists, and literary men of our own 
and immediately preceding times—Agassiz, Miller, Cousin, 
Carlyle, Sir William Hamilton, McCosh, Trendelenburg, 
Lord Kelvin, Principal Dawson, Prof. Cocker, Prof. Dana, 
Prof. Gray, Prof. Guyot, Prof. Winchell. Just here we 
quote again. the declaration of Prof. Cocker, of Michigan 
University, that teleology “is avowed by the first scientists 
of the age.”! Truly Dawson, Cocker, Kelvin, Gray, Dana, 
Guyot and Winchell are among the first scientists of the 
age. 

Besides all this, for eighteen hundred years, the be- 

(1) Zhe Theistic Conception of the World, p. 129. 


140 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


lief of the great mass of the people has been teleological. 

In view of these facts, the boastful claim that teleology 
has been destroyed by Darwinism is out of place, and is 
well nigh ridiculous. On the other hand, there is a strong 
presumption that ideas so generally accepted by the great- 
est minds in ancient and modern times are well-founded 
and true. 

Il. Zhe anti-teleologists virtually give up the case by ad- 
/ missions which not only nullify their arguments, but over- 
throw the doctrine which they advocate. 

We hold that this is done by all the anti-teleologists, 
with one possible exception, Spencer. 

1. We begin with Darwin. Many, of course are ready 
to point to him as an instance of a great and logical mind 
rejecting teleology. We think, however, that all the facts 
of his inner consciousness taken together, his doubts and 
struggles, his advances and relapses, his atrophied facul- 
ties and tastes (our meaning will be made evident in a 
little while), his apathies, and his oft-repeated admissions, 
—all these taken together are decidedly favorable to the 
teleological view and argument. In early life he greatly 
admired Paley’s Natural Theology—“hardly ever admired 
any book so much—could almost have said it by heart.”! 
His five years’ course in the universities of Edinburg and 
‘ Cambridge was a waste of time, except so far as the study 
of Paley was concerned—“‘the study of Paley’s Moral Phil- 
osophy and Christian Evidences was the only part of the 
academical course which was of the least use to me in the 
education of my mind.” 

At this period of his life he believed in the Divine 
origin of the Bible and Christianity, and he even contem- 
plated becoming a clergyman—"had the bump of reverence 
developed enough for ten priests.” ? Butin time all that 
waschanged. “I gradually came to disbelieve in Christian- 
ity as adivine revelation.” 4 But at the time of the publi- 
cation of his “Origin of Species,’ he was still a believer in 
God, but even on this point he became sceptical. After all, 
he never got rid of theism and the argument from design. 
His confession of difficulty, doubt, hesitation, struggling 
and staggering is interesting, but pitiful. At one time, he 

(1) Lifeand Letters, Vol. 2, p. 15. 

(2), vol. a) -p. 4. 

(3) Life and Letters, vol. 1, pp. 39-41 

(4) vol. 1 p. 278. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. IAI 


writes as follows: “I amin an utterly hopeless muddle. I 
cannot think that the world as we see it is the result of 
chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the 
result of design. * * * Again I say I am and shall ever 
remain in a hopeless muddle.”! At another time he wrote 
thus : “Another source of conviction in the existence of 
God, connected with the reason, and not the feelings, im- 
presses meas having much more weight. This follows 
from the extreme difficulty, or rather impossibility, of con- 
ceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including 
man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into 
futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When 
thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause 
having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to 
that of man; and deserve to be called a Thiest. * * * Bnt 
then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as 
I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that 
possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws 
such grand conclusions?”2 Again writing to Mr. Graham, 
Darwin said: ‘Nevertheless you have expressed my in- 
ward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than 
I could have done, that the universe is not the result of 
chance. Butthen with methe horrid doubt always arises, 
whether convictions of man’s mind, which has been devel- 
oped from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value 
or are at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the con- 
victions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions 
in such a mind?’3 

It cost Darwin a protracted effort and struggle to get 
rid of the argumeut from design, and he never did get rid 
of it. It troubled him as long as he lived. This is one of 
the things in regard to which he said, “To this day I can 
never reflect on them without being staggered.”4 And in 
view of the indications of design in the construction of the 
eye, he was constrained to say: ‘To suppose that the eye, 
with all its inimitable contrivances, could have been formed 
by natural selection seems, I confess, absurd in the high- 
est degree.”® He had this, among other considerations, 
in view, when he wrote to Huxley, “I entirely agree with 

(1) Life and Letters, vol. 2, p. 146. 

(2) Life and Letters, vol. 1, p. 282. 

(3) Ltfeand Letters, vol. 1, p. 285. 


(4) Origin of Species, p. 154. 
(5) Origin of Species, p. 167. 


142 CONMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


you that the difficulties on my notions are terrific.”! To 
Prof. Gray he wrote: “The eye to this day gives me a shud- 
der, but when I think of the fine known gradations my 
reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” And 
again: “I remember well the time when the thought of 
the eye made me cold all over; * * * and now small tri- 
fling particulars often made me very uncomfortable. The 
sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, 
makes me sick.’’? 

When some one? spoke of the wonderful contrivances 
for certain purposes in nature, and of Darwin’s own re- 
markable words on this subject in “Fertzlization of Orchids,” 
and remarked that it was impossible tolook at these contri- 
vances without seeing that they are the effect and expres- 
sion of Mind, Darwin’s answer was, ‘‘Well, that often comes 
over me with overwhelming force; but at other times it 
seems to go away.’’4 , 

It is Darwin himself who tells us that, up to the age 
of thirty and beyond it, he delighted in music and poetry, 
reading with relish Shakespeare, Milton, Gray, Byron, 
Wordsworth, Coleridge ana Shelley; but that he experienced 
a curious and lamentable loss of the higher zesthetic tastes 
and ofall relish for poetry.—“But now for many years I 
cannot endure to read a line of poetry; I have tried lately 
to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that 
it nauseated me. * * * My mind seems'to have becomea 
kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large col- 
lections of facts, but why this should have caused the 
atrophy of that part of the brain alone on which the higher 
tastes depend, I cannot conceive. A man with a mind 
more highly organized or better constituted than mine, 
would not, I suppose, have thus suffered; and if I had to 
live my life again, I would make a rule to read some poet- 
ry and listen to some music at least once every week; for 
perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would thus 
have been kept active through use. The loss of these tastes 
is aloss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to 
the intellect, and more probably by enfeebling the emo- 
tional part of our nature.’ 

There are indications that this atrophy of Darwin’s 

(1) Life and Letters, vol. 2, p. 147. 
(2) Life and Letters. vol. 2, pp. 67, 90. 
(3) The Duke of Argyle 


(4) Life and Letters, vol. 1, p. 285. 
(5) Life and Letters, vol. 1, pp. 81-2. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 143 


brain and higher esthetic tastes, though its evil effects 
were known and acknowledged by him, nevertheless were 
injurious to his intellect and moral nature to a degree of 
which he was not aware. With all his doubts, scepticism 
and unbelief in regard to God and his overruling provi- 
dence, he indulged in the use of such expressions as 
“Thank God—I hope to Heaven—I wish to Heaven—Well, 
thank Heaven—I hope to God—God knows—By Jove— 
Even wish to God—Great God!—By Jove, as far as my 
memory goes—Thank God—What the devil determines 
each particular variation?—God forgive me—After what 
the Pall Mall Gazette and the Chronicle have said, I do 
not care a d——.”1 

The facts then in regard to Darwin and his views are 
as follow : 

(1.) He struggled with theism and teleology all his 
life after the publication of his “Orzgzn of Species.” 

(2.) The teleological question was never settled in his 
mind. He confessed that the argument from design “often 
came upon him with overwhelming force.” 

(3.) He admitted that the thought, that the universe 
could not have originated by chance, was irresistible; but 
he allowed this thought to be set aside by “the horrid 
doubt” (as he called it) that since man is descended from 
the lowest animals, the convictions of his mind on this 
subject are no more trustworthy than those of a monkey. 

(4.) Teleological facts and views never ceased to trouble 
him. The thought of the human eye and its contrivances, 
according 10 his own confession, made him shudder, and 
the sight of a beautiful feather in a peacock’s tail, to use 
his own expressions, made him exceedingly wzcom/fortadble, 
sick, and cold—cold all over. 

(5.) His brain and higher tastes were atrophied; his 
‘ mind becamea machine; the finest literature was intoler- 
able; the reading of Shakespeare was nauseating to him. 

(6.) Evidently he regarded the teleological as the 
strongest of all the arguments urged in behalf of theism. 
When debating with himself the question whether there is 
a Godin heaven, this argument was uppermost in his 
mind, and according to his own confession, and notwith- 
standing the atrophy of his brain and soul, came upon him 
often with overwhelming force, put him in a muddle, and 


(1) Lifeand Letters, vol. 2, pp. 28, 166, 169, 170, 174, 194, 196, 
258, 282, 326, 329. 


T44 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


made him cold and sick. He himself, as we will hereafter 
show, recognized, to the fullest extent, adaptations and 
contrivances in nature, wonderful, ingenious, perfect, far 
transcending all the adaptations and contrivances which 
man can invent or imagine.! 

It is not at all wonderful that Darwin shivered and 
shuddered, hesitated and fluctuated, and at times was over- 
powered in his struggle with teleology and theism. 

In view of these facts, we hold that the case of Darwin 
on the whole is by no means unfavorable to teleology. He 
struggled hard to get rid of the argument from design, but 
never succeeded. It often came upon him with over- 
whelming force, notwithstanding his efforts and struggles 
against it. 

2. Anotherof the anti-teleologists is Prof. Hzeeckel of 
Jena, Germany, to whom we have already so frequently 
alluded. He is the inventor of dysteleology, which he de- 
clares to be the science of rudimentary organs, and defines 
it as the theory of purposelessness. We claims that this so- 
called science “is alone sufficient to refute the fundamental 
error of the teleological and dualistic conception of Na- 
ture.”2 According to his representation, there aré rudi- 
mentary organs that have become imperfect and diminu- 
tive through disuse and are on the road to complete disap- 
pearance, ‘adapted for a purpose, but without inreality ful- 
filling that purpose’’—‘arrangements the purpose of which 
it is utterly impossible to make out.’”® The facts thus ex- 
pressed and implied are as follow: 

(1.) All organs in their normal condition have a pur- 
pose or design. 

(2.) The rudimentary organs, in their original condi- 
tion, before they became atrophied and dwarfed through 
disuse, had a purpose and fulfilled it. 

(3.) Ifan organ ceases to fulfill the purpose to which 
it was adapted, it atrophies and finally disappears. Hzeeckel 
says expressly, “If an organ degenerates from non-use, 
this degeneration ends finally in a complete disappear- 
ance.’’4 ' 

According to these facts and views, teleology is tri- 
umphant along the whole line. The organs in general, all 
the organs that are in their normal condition, fulfill eacha 

(1) Fertilization of Orchids, p. 351. 

(2) History of Creation, vol. 2, p. 353. 

(3) History of Creation, vol. 1, p. 12, 15-16, 17, 249. 
(4) Alist. of Creation, vol. 1, p. 249. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEULOGY. 145 


definite purpose. Even the rudimentary organs must be 
accounted for on the teleological principle. They came in- 
to existence each for a definite purpose, and when they 
cease to fulfill the definite purposes to which they were 
adapted, they begin to disappear and must finally be anni- 
hilated. These representations and admissions establish 
teleology. The manifestation of a definite purpose or de- 
sign is adnutted in nearly all the organs, in all indeed that 
are.in their normal condition; and even the rudimentary 
organs, few comparatively in number and destined to be 
entirely obliterated, are accounted for on the teleological 
principle, that formerly they existed for a definite purpose 
and actually fulfilled it. A wart on a man’s cheek and a 
mole on his chin do not prove that his eyes, nose, mouth, 
teeth and tongue are without design and use, especially if 
it were admitted that these little excrescences formerly 
themselves answered a good and definite purpose, and are 
now destined to disappear. 

3. Huxley fell in with Heeckel’s dysteleological views, 
and even exultingly claimed that the German professor 
had ‘‘ given a death blow to teleology.” But after making 
this declaration, he proceeds at once to suggest (as we 
have before mentioned) that the facts of dysteleology cut 
two ways, and place the advocates of this hypothesis in a 
dilemma; for the reason that useless organs, as evolution- 
ists generally assume, atrophy and disappear. But the 
. rudimentary organs so-called do not disappear, but persist 
and have persisted for ages. Hence they are not really 
rudimentary ; or if they are, they must yet be useful and 
serve some purpose. For otherwise as useless organs 
they would have been long ago obliterated. But in either 
case their dysteleological value is gone.! Darwin recog- 
nized these admissions of Huxley as damaging to the dys- 
teleological hypothesis and as confirming the argument 
from design. He wrote to Huxley as follows: ‘My Dear 
Huxley:—I have been delighted to see your review of 
Heckel, and as usual you pile honours high on my head, 
But I write now to groan a little over what you have said 
about rudimentary organs. Many heretics will take ad- 
vantage of what you have said about rudimentary or- 
gans.’2 Itis not strange that Darwin groaned over the 
fact that Huxley virtually admitted the anti-teleological 
argument drawn from rudimentary organs to be invalid 


(1) Critiques and Addresses, pp 274-5. 
(2) Life and Letters, Vol. 2, p 299. 


146 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


and worthless ; for this is aboutthe only argument that the 
anti-teleologists can employ. 

4. We have mentioned Prof. Romanes as one of those 
who set aside the doctrine of design in nature and the 
argument derived from it. This was during the time of 
the eclipse of his Christian faith. But even when the 
eclipse was at its height, his declarations and doubtless 
his real belief were strikingly inconsistent with his avowed 
theory. He admits that the adaptations in nature involve 
an innumerable multitude of special mechanisms even 
within the limits of any one species. He pronounces these 
adaptations and mechanisms to be uwstounding. He declares 
“these mechanical contrivances are, for the most part, no 
merely simple arrangements. * * * Qn the contrary, 
they everywhere and habitually exhibit so deep-laid, so in- 
tricate, and often so remote an adaptation of means to 
ends, that no machinery of human contrivance can proper- 
ly be said to equaltheir perfection from a mechanical point 
of view. Therefore, without question, the hypothesis 
which first of all they suggest—or suggest most readily— 
is the hypothesis of design.”! He thought, however, that 
this conclusion could be resisted on the ground that the 
world and its contents were not swddenly created, but arose 
gradually, one species being produced from another. But 
in the course of time, he accepted the argument from design 
and Paley’s presentation of it. He announced his belief 
that the teleology of Revelation supplements that of Na- 
ture and that Paley’s writings form an excellent illustra- 
tion of the identity of the teleological argument from Na- 
ture and from Revelation, though Paley himself seems not 
to have observed the similarity of the argument as devel- 
oped in his Watural Theology and Evidences of Christiantty. 
He thought that Paley erred in appealing only to reason, 
and in not recognizing the spiritual nature in man; but he 
declared that no one has developed the argument in both 
cases better than Paley. Thus the accomplished and tal- 
ented G. J. Romanes, M. A., LL. D., F.R. S., of Cambridge, 
England, an evolutionist and defender of Darwinism, ac- 
cepted teleology and Christianity, and began to pray after 
a silence of a quarter of acentury. 2 

(1) Darwin and After Darwin, vol.2, pp. 280-281. 
(2) Romanes’ 7houghton Religion, edited by C. Gore, pp. 
144, 190, IOI. 


APPLIED*TO, DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 147 


5 We have quoted the allusion of Le Conte to what he 
is pleased to call ‘‘*he man-like, cabinelt-making, watch-mak- 
tng design of Paley.’ ‘The Professor seems to think that it 
would be too small a business and too man-like for the Al- 
mighty to engage in the making of eyes and fingers, bones 
and joints, little insects with their tiny wings and limbs, 
the little flowers with their petals and pistils, spots and 
tints, and to attend to other minutiz in creation and provi- 
dence. He undoubtedly believes that there is nothing too 
great or immense for God, but he seemingly thinks there 
are for Himcountless things too minute. Hence he re- 
jects the teleology of Paley. He discards all distinct, sep- 
arate, petty, man-like design, and insists on the concep- 
tion of ‘one infinite, all-embracing design stretching across 
infinite space and continuing unchanged through infinite 
time.” |! Yet in immediate connection with the above 
quoted declaration, the author affirms, “There is design in 
everything.’ Design ineverything? Then there is design 
in the eye, ear, finger, joints, and every organ of the human 
body ; in every beast, bird, reptile, fish, bug and insect; in 
every flower, herb and blade of grass. Forall these are 
things, and Le Conte assures us ¢here ts design in everything. 
He himself has employed both the watch and the eye as illus- 
trations and proofs of teleology; and even maintained there 
are ingenious and wonderful contrivances for beauty as 
well as for use.? It seems that he must have forgotten all 
this when he was applying such depreciatory terms as 
petty and cabinet-making to design as presented by Paley. ® 
It would seem, too, that, for the time, he must have for- 
gotten that the Divine one of Nazareth taught that the 
care and providence of God extend even to every little bird 
and to every hair that grows on a human head.4 

6. Fiske, too, who disparages and reviles the current 
teleology, falls into inconsistencies similar to those men- 
tionedabove. Take the following statements in regard to 
the course of evolution and the bringing of the universe 
into its present condition, as examples: ‘Every one of 
-the myriad little acts of life and death during the entire 
series of geologic ceons was assisting. The whole scheme 
was teleological, and each single act of natural selection 

(1) Evolution, &c., pp. 348-357. 

(2) Religton and Science, pp. 27-62. 

(3) Hvolution and its Relation to Religious Thought, pp. 848-557, 
(4) Matt. 10:29-30; Luke 12:6-7. 


148 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


had a teleological meaning.’ 1. This declaration is as far 
reaching and inclusive as anything written by Paley or 
any other advocate of teleology. It sets forth not only 
that the whole scheme of the universe has been directed 
for the accomplishment of a grand result, but also that 
every event and every act of natural selection has been 
directedin the same way. If every act of natural selection 
had a teleological meaning, then must the eye, the ear, and 
every joint and every limb, and every part of every organ- 
ic being, have a teleological meaning and adaptation. For, 
according to Darwinism, the eye, the ear and every organ 
of the human body and of the bodies of the lower animals 
together with things in general, even the minutest things, 
in the the universe, barring a few original forms to begin 
with, and the doings of sexual selection (which after all is 
but a branch of natural selection) are the production of 
natural selection. According, then, to this deliverance, 
the eye, the ear and every organ of the human body, and 
every organ of the bodies of the lower animals, together 
with almost everything elsein the universe, give evidence 
of design. 

It is thus that Heeckel, Huxley, Romanes, Le Conte and 
Fiske, by their admissions and statements, virtually give 
up their case, and fall in with Paley and Chalmers. Such 
inconsistency and self-contradiction are not surprising. For 
teleology, belief in manifestations of God’s wisdom, good- 
ness and purposes throughout nature, the work of His 
hands, is implied in the very idea of God. Whoever is not 
an atheist, but believes in the existence of a Creator and 
Ruler of the universe, must acknowledge the manifesta- 
tion and proof of divine power, wisdom, goodness plans 
and purposes in both nature and providence. The only 
way for an anti-teleologist, who believes in God, to avoid 
selfcontradiction, is to be silent in regard to teleology and 
the works and the providence of God. 

It is largely in this way that Spencer has avoided the 
inconsistencies which characterize so many of the other 
anti-teleologists. He notices teleology only to declare » 
oracularly that it fails. He writes as if he had never heard 
or thought of contrivances in nature. He would seem to 
be ignorant of all that has been said on this subject by 
such men as Darwin, Romanes, Lubbock and other modern 
scientists about adaptations and contrivances—“ingenious 

(1) Lhe Idea of God, p. 161, 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. I49 


—‘‘delicate’’—“‘ exquisite ’’—“ admirable ”—“ wonderful ”— 
“transcending in an incomparable degree all the adapta- 
tions and contrivances which the most fertile human 
imagination couldsuggest.” ! He has no doubt read Dar- 
win, and perhaps also Lubbock. But he seems to be blind 
and deaf, and is at least dumb in regard to matters of this 
kind. Besides he is almost an atheist. He speaks dis- 
dainfully of ‘the mechanical God of Paley;” 2 but Azs god, 
denominated “the unknown first cause” and “the inscruta- 
ble power of the universe,” is not God at all. It is some- 
thing without personality, knowledge, thought, emotion, 
love, mercy or goodness. Spencer calls it the inscrutable 
power, and teaches that all that can be known about this 
power is that itis unknowable. 

Spencer’s theological notion reminds us of Crambe in 
Martinus Seribblerus. ‘Crambe swore that he could frame 
a conception of a Lord Mayor not only without his horse, 
gown, and gold chain, but even without stature, feature, 
color, hands, head, feet, or any body, which he supposed 
was the abstract of a Lord Mayor.’ Spencer’s abstractive 
genius is almost equal to that of Crambe; he empties the 
theistic idea of every attribute but power and even de- 
clares that inscrutable. 

The above facts explaift why Spencer did not fall into 
inconsistencies and self-contradictions, like so many of the 
other anti-teleological scientists. Ignoring contrivances 
in nature almost entirely, and reducing God almost to an . 
abstraction, he was as little concerned about teleology as 
the man who murmurs in his heart, ‘“There is no God.” 

III. The opposition to the argument from design, on 
the part oftheistic Darwinists, proceeds, at least in many 


- cases, from disbelief in a particular Providence. 


The thorough-going atheist rejects teleology because 
he believes there isno God in heaven, and therefore con- 
cludes that there can be no manifestation of divine fore- 
thought and design in things on the earth or anywhere 
else. The agnostic doubts whether there is a Creator and 
Ruler of the world, and therefore calls in question the va- 
lidity of the teleological as well as of every other argument 
for the existence of God. Any man, though he be a full 
believer in Theism, who has made up his mind against the 
doctrine of a particular Providence, if he reason slogically, 


(1) See farther on in this chapter, 
(2) Universal Prog., p. 299. 


150 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


must hold that God has neither knowledge nor care of 
minute things, and therefore does not manifest either de- 
sign or goodness in the eye or ear or any organ, or any 
separate existence or separate event known to men. Such 
a man may indeed believe that God has some grand and 
general design, which things in general tend to accomplish; _ 
but his belief that God does not care for, nor think of, 
minutize and details, will lead him logically to conclude 
that there can be no manifestation of design in any partic- 
ular process, existence or event. And perhaps he will not 
alwaysrefrain from expressing contempt:and aversion for 
such an idea. Thus the opponents of teleology are very 
apt to proceed on the assumption (often not expressed) 
that God neither knows nor cares for small things, nor for 
individual organs, processes or events. Ifthe assumption 
be admitted, the rejection of teleology is the logical result. 

Darwin set the example of reasoning in this way. Al- 
most his only argument consists in references that almost 
seem intended to ridicule the doctrine ofa particular provi- 
dence. To offset the case ofa man killed by lghtning, 
accepted as an event designed by the Almighty, he wrote 
as follows: “If you believe so, do you believe that when a 
swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that par- 
ticular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that 
particular instant?’ ! He also referred in similar style to 
the shape of his own nose, which was very peculiar. On 
account of it, his application for the place of naturalist on 
the Beagle came very near being rejected. Afterward he 
referred to his queer-looking nose as an argument in op- 
position to the teleological views both of Sir C. Lyell and 
Prof. Gray. Tothe latter he wrote as follows: “I have 
lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts 
your idea of the stream of variation having been led or de- 
_ signed. I have asked him (and he says he will hereafter 
reflect and answer) whether he believes that the shape of 
my nose was designed. If he does I have nothing more to 
say.” ? 

Darwin put forward these facts, the peculiar shape of 
his own nose, and the devouring of agnat by a swallow, as 
representatives of small events and of things in general. 
And evidently he reasoned as follows; Szzce there ts no 
manifestation of divine design tn the snapping up of a partic- 

(1) Life and Letters, vol. 1, p. 284. 

(1) Life and Letters, vol. 2, p. 170. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. ISI 


ular gnat, by a particular swallow, at a particular time, nor 
in the peculiar construction of my nose, there ts no mantfesta- 
tion of divine design in any other small event or small thing; 
and hence there ts no manifestation of divine design in the 
greatest and the grandest things and events. 

In this way, teleology is supposed by some to be re- 
futed altogether. Others, and we understand Le Conte 
and Fiske to be of this number, do not push the conclu- 
sion so far as to reject teleology entirely. Authors of this 
class seem to think it toosmallabusiness for the Almighty 
to govern, or even to know, little things; and hence they 
reject teleology as taught by Paley and Chalmers, but are 
willing to admit that God has a grand design, to the accom- 
plishment of which all things tend, though they are by no 
means careful to indicate what in their judgment that 

grand design is. 
In regard to this rejection of the doctrine ofa particular 
Providence and the consequent partial or total rejection of 
teleology, we remark as follows: 

I. Those who reason in this way do so in opposition to 
the plain declarations of the great teacher, Jesus of Nazar- 
eth. The doctrine of a particular Providence was promi- 
nent in his teachings He expressly taught that not a 
sparrow falls to the ground without God, or is forgotten be- 
fore God. He further declared that even the hairs of our 
heads are all numbered.! He thus affirmed that the 
knowledge and agency of Godextend to the smallest and 
minutest things. He also taught the doctrine of a particu- 
lar Providence, as well as of creation, in declaring that 
God feeds the ravens, clothes the grass of the field and 
arrays the liliesin glory greater than that ofSoloimon. 2 The 
doctrine ofa particular Providence is involved in the duty 
and privilege of prayer as taught by Christ, “Give us this 
day our daily bread.’ ® This petition can be offered in 
prayer only by those who believe that there is a God in 
heaven who rules over the little as well as_ the great affairs 
of earth, and who knows the secret thoughts and desires 
of the human heart. Thesame truths are implied in the 
declaration, ‘Every idle word that men shall speak they 
shall give anaccount thereof in the day of judgment.” 4 
For if God takes cognizance of and will judge the com- 

t Matt. 10:20-30. Luke 12:6-7. 


2) Luke 12:24-8. (3) Matt. 6:11, 
(4) Matt. 12:36. 


152 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC ~ 


paratively unimportant, idle words of men, he must know 
the time, occasionand circumstances of their utterance. 

Thus the Christ, the greatest moral and theological 
teacher of all time, set forth and affirmed again and again 
that God’s knowledge and overruling providence extend 
not only to the great affairs of the universe, but also to the 
insignificant and minute. 

2. Christian and enlightened people, together with 
nearly all the heathen who had any theological knowledge 
or belief worth speaking of, have in all ages believed, and 
profoundly believed, in a particular Providence. This be- 
lief will not be abandoned at the suggestion and behest of 
a few scientists and philosophers. 

3. True philosophy and sound common sense teach that 
there can be no general Providence without a particular 
Providence, no control of great events without control of 
littleones. Causes and effects aresolinked together that 
the greatest of events often depend on little causes, on 
causes as insignificant in themselves as the destruction of 
an insect or the shape of aman’s nose. Hethat rules the 
great events of the universe must, in order to do so, rule 
the little events as well. He that would construct a ma- 
chine, start and keep it running, must attend to every part 
and keep every part in good condition. He must not omit 
or neglect any part however small. The omission or 
breakage of the smallest wheel, or of a single cog in the 
smallest wheei, of a clock or watch will render the instru- 
ment utterly useless. So the management of the world 
involves attention to little things without number. 

4. There are adaptations and contrivances in little and 
unimportant things, as well as in great and important 
things. This point will be elaborated farther on. For the 
present, we urge attention to this consideration, thatit is 
illogical and unreasonable to admit the manifestation of 
design in great matters because of evident adaptations and 
contrivances, and to reject designin small matters though 
manifested by adaptations and contrivances just as evident. 
The sceptical Darwinist virtually says: ‘‘There are adapta- 
tions and contrivances in great matters, and theseI admit 
as evidences of the existence of a divine Creator and Ruler, 
on the ground that there cannot be design without a de- 
signer, nor contrivance without a contriver. There are 
also adaptations and contrivances in small things, even in 
the tiny flowers of small and frail vegetables. But I do 


‘ 
7 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 153 


not admit that these contrivances manifest a contriver, or 
that these manifestations of design prove a designer; I 
set aside the argument for design and a designer, on the 
ground that if there indeed be a God, it is too small a busi- 
ness for Him to concern himself about little vegetables 
and their tiny flowers.” The atheistic Darwinist, and the 
thorough-going agnostic, more consistently, but none the 
less illogically, reject the teleological argument altogether, 
maintaining that in great as well as in small matters there 
may be contrivance without a contriver, design without a 
designer, and thought without a thinker. 

IV. The existence of rudimentary organs has often 
been urged as an objection to teleology. Darwin, Heckel, 
Huxley, Le Conte and others claim this fact as a refutation 
of the argument from design. But the reasoning and ad- 
missions of these men do but strengthen our confidence in 
the validity of this argument. 

1. The claim that the rudimentary organs are useless, 
and are therefore without design, is an admission -that or- 


/ gans in general are designed for particular uses. Take the 


following declaration as an example: ‘The same reasoning 
power which tells us plainly that most parts and organs 
are exquisitely adapted for certain purposes, tells us with 
equal plainness that these rudimentary or atrophied or- 
gans are imperfect and useless.” ! This statement virtual- 
ly concedes the whole question at issue. For since it is 
“plain that most parts and organs are exquisitely adapted for 

certain purposes,’ it is plain that in most parts and organs © 


‘there is evidence of design and of a Designer. The fact 


that such evidence is wanting in some parts and organs 
does not destroy the evidence where it actually exists It 
is admitted on all hands that the rudimentary and useless 
organs are few as compared with the organs that are in 
their normal condition and are useful. The former may be 
compared to a few witnesses summoned to court who know 
nothing about the case in hand, and on the witness stand 
have nothing to say. The latter are a crowd of witnesses 
who testify positively and point-blank to the facts of use- 
fulness and purpose. The hands are useful organs. Ev- 
ery finger, joint, nail, muscle, nerve and vein is useful. 
The hand by its ingenious construction, adaptation and 
usefulness manifests thought and design. A few useless 
warts upon the hand do not change its character nor de- 


(1) Origin of Species, p. 393. 


154 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


stroy its significance. 

2. The explanation of rudimentary organs given by Dar- 
wenists ts a confirmation of the argument from design. That 
explanation involves the idea ot usefulness and design. 
Rudimentary organs are of two kinds—organs atrophied by 
disuse, and zascent organs, those that have started to grow 
but are not yet sufficiently developed to be useful. Both 
kinds of organs are accounted for on teleological grounds. — 
The atrophied organs are supposed formerly to have ans- 
wered a purpose and to have been useful. The nascent or- 
gans are supposed to have been originated with a view to 
future usefulness and to be destined, when developed, to 
answer a particular purpose. Thus both classes of rudi- 
mentary organs are illustrations of teleology. In the ex- 
planation of them, Darwinists fall back upon the hypoth- 
esis of usefulness, adaptation and purpose. 

V. Another argument employed to overthrow teleology 
is the fact that there zs a great deal of misery in the world. 

Darwin said, ‘““There seems to me too much misery in the 
world.” | Spencer, in arguing against special creations, 
alludes to the countless pain-inflicting appliances and in- 
stincts with which the lower animals are endowed, and to 
the warfare and carnage that have prevailed among sentti- 
ent creatures in general. 2 Fiske reasons in the same way, 
and declares physical and moral evil to be proots of awk- 
wardness or malevolence. 

We imake the following suggestions: 

1. The origin and existence of physical and moral evil 
are profound mysteries. Most men are willing to admit that 
they do not understand them, and are not disposed to draw 
arguments from them to prove or disprove disputed points. 

2. The prevalence of evil in the world may be employed 
with just as much show of reason to disprove that there is 
a God in heaven as to disprove design in nature. If the 
existence of evil in the world proves the absence of design 
and wisdom in the afairs and management of the world, it 
will prove equally well that God neither created nor rules 
the world, which is downright atheism. 

3. We should not exaggerate the misery that is in the 
world. Itis true that there are much sin, crime and suf- 
fering. It is true that there is suffering everywhere, and 
that almost every man andevery animal suffers at one time 

(1.) Life and Letters, vol. 2, p 105. 

(2.) Btology, vol. 1, pp 340-7. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 155 


or another. But after all, even among men, in this life, 
’ notwithstanding their sins and crimes, there is more hap- 
piness than misery. There are more healthy people than 
sick people; more that are in comfortable circumstances 
_ than are very poor; more that are rejoicing than mourn- 
ing. Job describes the wicked as living in prosperity and 
pleasure, and as suffering only for a brief space at the time 
of their death. ‘They spend their days in wealth, and in 
a moment go down tothe grave.” ! The Psalmist makes a 
similar representation. He describes the people of the 
world, the great majority of mankind, as living in ease and 
carelessness, and even as having ‘‘no bands in their death.” 
They have indeed pains and terrors, but these are sudden 
and brief. 2. The Bible does indeed represent the wicked as 
very miserable, but that is in view of approaching punish- 
ment for sin. Their present life is represented as being in 
a majority of cases thoughtless, careless and merry. Dar- 
win has given much the same view of human life, and of 
animal lifein general, as follows: “According to my judg- 
ment, happiness decidedly prevails’ —“all sentient beings 
have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happi- 
ness’ —‘“how can the generally beneficent arrangement of 
the world be accounted for?” 3 Thus, though Darwin said 
“there seems to me to be too much misery in the world,” 
he nevertheless held that there is more happiness than 
misery, more pleasure than pain. This predominance of 
happiness proves that the Maker of the world is not malig- 
nant nor cruel. Had he been a Being of malignity and 
cruelty, he would not have “formed sentient beings to en- 
joy happiness as a general rule,’ nor have allowed the ar- 
rangement of the world to be generally beneficent. On the 
other hand, the predominance of happiness over misery in 
the world indicates at the very least that God prefers to 
make his creatures happy, and that the evil in the world is 
to be accounted for by some reason or necessity which now 
we do not understand nor know. 

4. It is evident that the pain and misery in the world 
have not been destred nor produced for their own sake. Not 
one single organ in man’s body, or in that of any brute, 
has for its purpose the production of pain. No one claims 
that even rudimentary organs tend to make their possess- 
ors unhappy. On the other hand it is maintained that the 

(1) Job-21 : 7-13 (2) Ps. 73 : 3-19. 
(3) Life and Letters, vol. 1, p 279. 


156 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 
atrophied organs once answered a purpose and were useful 
and that the nascent ones are destined to become useful, or * 
at least have been started for that purpose. The pain ex- 
perienced in any part or organ is only incidental. Evi- 
dently the part or organ does not exist for the sake of the 
pain and for the purpose of tormenting the possessor. A 
tooth is liable to ache, but evidently it was not made in or- 
der that it might ache. The aching is incidental and occa- 
sional. Its end and normal useare mastication. So ofthe 
tongue, ear, eye, hand and all organs and parts of the 
bodies of men and beasts. And so too of all the arrange- 
ments in the universe, so far as we have any knowledge 
ofthem. Their tendency and their intention (though the 
intention must be in the mind of the Maker and Arranger) 
are to produce convenience, comfort and happiness. The 
incidental evils do not destroy the proofs of benevolence 
furnished by the end, adaptations and general tendency of 
the arrangements. 

5. But the teleological argument zs xof destroyed by the 
fact that there are contrivances in nature for the purpose of 
destroying and killing. 

The anti-teleologist may point to the lions, tigers, 
hyenas, bears, panthers, cats and other pugnacious and 
carnivorous animals, and say, “See there! these animals, 
with teeth and fangs and claws are adapted and designed 
to kill and devour, are they?” We answer, yes. The con- 
struction of these animals, together with their instincts, 
indicates contrivance and a contriver. -Even contrivance 
for a bad purpose is still contrivance, and contrivance de- 
monstrates thought and a thinker. But the existence of 
the predacious animals is not for a bad purpose. They are 
needed. Death among the lower animals is a necessity. 
But for death, any one of the species of animals would 
soon overcrowd the earth, and in the end pile it sky-high 
with writhing bodies, Since animals must die, it is best 
they should be killed and devoured. Far better to die 
suddenly by the stroke of-.a lion or other wild beast than 
to die of old age, or disease or starvation. It is well too 
that the bodies of dead animals should be devoured. Other- 
wise they would decay on the surface of the earth and 
breed stench and disease. After all, then, the existence of 
predacious animals with their teeth, tusks, fangs and claws, 
and their flesh-devouring instincts, indicates adaptation and 
contrivance, and at the same time a benevolent purpose. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. bey 


Even among human beings, as they now exist on the 
earth, death is expedient and necessary, unless natural 
laws should be reversed. What would be the result if 
death was impossible among men? What would be the 
state of things if men were compelled to live on in spite of 
all wounds and mutilations and the effects of disease ? Some 
men have their hearts pierced and lacerated; some men 
have their brains crushed and scattered; some have their 
lungs cut and lacerated, or wasted away by disease; some 
have their bodies torn to pieces or blown to atoms by ex- 
plosions ; some rot through disease; and all who live long 
become enfeebled and decrepit and helpless through age. 
If death among men should be abolished, and naturallaws 
should not be reversed, what a world we would have !— 
men without heads, men with crusbed brains, men with 
bodies torn in pieces, men with bodies blown to atoms, 
men and women enfeebled, broken down, paralyzed with 
old age, blind, deaf, dumb, idiotic, and becoming still more 
helpless with advancing years. Besides all this, if death 
were abolished, the human race in a short time would in- 
crease to such an extent that there would not be standing 
room for them on the earth. 

The suffering and death that are in the world, then, 

/ do not disprove teleology. It is strange to find men who 

' acknowledge the existence of God urging as an argument 

| against teleology the fact of the prevalence of physical and 

-moral evil, an argument which might equally well, if not 
better, be employed in favor of atheism. It is the one 
which Lord Byron represents Cain, under the tutelage of 
the devil, as employing before he stained his hands with 
his brother’s blood.| The argument is more appropriate 
in the mouth of the first murderer than from the pen of a 
theistic philosopher. 

VI. Objection has been urged against teleology on the 
ground of what is called azthropomorphism. The objection 
‘is that teleology assimilates God to men. It is claimed 
‘that to speak of God as adapting means to accomplish his 
purposes is to represent him as doing what men do. The 
|truth, however, is that all theists, including Mr. Fiske, 
who has so much to say against anthropomorphism, as- 
cribe to God human qualities as attributes. What are jus- 
tice, wisdom, holiness and mercy in God? They are simply 
human qualities designated by these names, only enlarged 

(1) Cain, Acts 11, Scene 11. 


158 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


and exalted. If any one is utterly ignorant of these quali- 
ties in men, he cannot conceive of them as attributes of 
God. Wisdom consists largely in adapting means to ends. 
To ascribe wisdom, or any other attribute, intellectual or 
moral, to God is to liken him to men. For men possess in 
some degree every attribute of God, except infinity and 
eternity. Men possess power, but not power to an infinite 
degree—omnipotence; men possess knowledge, but not to 
an infinite degree—omniscience ; men occupy space, but 
not to an infinite degree—omnipresence. So with regard 
to God’s other attributes—justice, holiness, goodness, 
mercy and truth. If to ascribe these qualities to God as 
possessed by him to a perfect and infinite degree is an- 
thropomorphism, then are we anthropomorphists. ‘God 
is a Spirit;” so said the great teacher of Nazareth. Here, 
then, is some tnore anthropomorphism, for there is a spirit 
in man. God is alsoaperson. Whatis aperson? A per- 
son is a living being that knows, thinks and reasons. The 
lower animals are not persons, for they lack rationality. 
That God is a person is certainly another anthropomorphic 
idea. 

Fiske says that Personality and Infinity are incom- 
patible ideas, and that Infinite person is just as unthink- 
able as Circular Triangle.! Yet he holds, or at least 
thinks he does, that God is a Person.2 But he of course 
holds that he is a fzzfe Person. Here, then, we have a 
doubly anthromorphic idea—God likened to men in being 
called a Person; God further likened to men in being de- 
clared a finite Person. To the latter idea we object. We 
hold that God is both a Spirit and a Person (and a Person 
because a Spirit,) and that he is omnipresent, omniscent, 
omnipotent, eternal and infinite. 

There is a kind of anthropomorphism which we abjure 
—the kind which would limit either the power or the attri- 
butes of God. It was perhaps to be expected that one who 
objects to “Infinite Power” and “Infinite Person” as in- 
volving anthropomorphism, 3 should charge Paley as well 
as Voltaire with “seeking to limitand localize the Deity. 4 
Were it not for the solemnity of the subject, and for the 
lamentable irreverence and error involved, it would be 
amusing to find men objecting, on the ground of anthropo- 

(1) Cosmic Philos., Vol. 2, pp. 408-9. 
(2) Idea of God, pref., pp. xv-xvii. 


(3) Fiske /dea of God, pref. p. xvi. 
(4) Cosmic Philos., vol. 2, p. 425. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 159 


morphism, to ideas concerning God, held indeed by Socra- 
tes and Plato, but held also by the theologians and Chris- 
tian people for eighteen hundred years, certainly contained 
in the Bible, and taught by Christ and the apostles; and 
then to find these same objectors turning round and de- 
claring God, like men, to be finite in person, power, knowl- 
edge and all his other attributes. Whatis anthropomorph- 
ism, if this not? 

' VII. After all the main question, andin one sense the 
only question, in this whole discussion, is this: Ave there 
adaptations and contrivances in nature? If there are, then 
must there be a Cause and Author of these adaptations 
and contrivances, not amere abstraction, not a mere power, 
but some one who thinks, chooses, foresees, plans and rea-. 
sons, and who therefore is a Person. 

We have already, in the first part of this chapter, 
shown that the intelligent portion of mankind, the learn- 
ing, philosophy and common sense of the ages, Christians, 
Theists, Deists (ccmmonly called infidels, such as Voltaire, 
Hume, Bolingbroke and Paine,) by an overwhelming ma- 
jority, have decided in favor of the argument from design, 
Even to this day confidence in this argument has not been 
destroyed. Belief in teleology persists notwithstanding 
the efforts that have been made to overthrow it. Even 
many thorough-going Darwinists believe in it. Fiske ex- 
pressly says that ‘this theory was in high favor during 
the earlier part of the present century, and is still common- 
ly held.” 1 Yes, “it is still commonly held”—held, as we 
have shown, by many of the most distinguished Darwin- 
ists. 

The correctness and conclusiveness of the argument 
as presented by Paley is virtually admitted by the oppo- 
nents of teleology. Asa general thing, they do not attempt 
to point out any flaw in the reasoning. Not a fact or illus- 
tration is called in question. Even its most zealous oppo- 
nents in general carefully let it alone; or proclaim its de- 
struction through Darwinism or Heeckel’s dysteleology. 
Leslie Stephen, a thorough-going sceptic in religion, an 
agnostic, oratheist, if he only knew it, writes thus of 
Paley’s Natural Theology. 

“The only fault in the book, considered as an instru- 
ment of persuasion, is that itis too conclusive. If there is 
no hidden flaw in the reasoning it would be impossible to 

(1) The Idea of God, p. 119. 


160 COMMON SENSE AND’ LOGIC 


understand not only how any should resist, but how any 
one should have overlooked, the demonstration.” Not- 
withstanding the claim that the bookis “too conclusive,” 
the objector admits that the argument istheone ‘that has 
the greatest popular force and that still passes muster with 
the metaphysicians.” | Whately, in his Rheforic, cautions 
disputants against reasoning too forcibly and making their 
arguments overwnelming, lest those, for whom they are in- 
tended, should reject them, partly from jealous self-regard 
and partiy from the ill-founded and weak suspicion that a 
conclusive argument, that does not convince everybody, 
must be fallacious. We did not, however, suppose that 
an able writer like Stephen would avowedly and conscious- 
ly object to Paley on such grounds. The objection is a 
virtual admission that the teleological arguiment as pre- 
sented by Paley is not only logical and strong, but unan- 
swerable. 

The teleological argument, instead of being destroyed 
or even weakened, has been, on the contrary, strengthened 
by the scientific discoveries of modern times, or at least by 
the statements and admissions of modern scientists. We 
refer not to the oft-repeated affirmation—‘Evolution is it- 
self the working out of a mighty teleology,”2 and similar 
ones made by Fiske and some other writers, but to a differ- 
ent kind of .statements, by a different class of writers. 
Darwin, for instance, testifies again and again to the exist- 
ence of adaptations and contrivances—delicate, ingenious, 
exquisite; wonderful adaptations and contrivances in na- 
ture. To express his admiration for these manifestations 
of thought and design, he exhausted the resources of the 
English language. The recognition of teleology character- 
izes nearly all his writings, but at present we call attention 
to his work entitled, “Fertilization of Orchids.” He begins 
this charming book as follows: ‘The object of the follow- 
ing work is to show that the contrivances by which or- 
chids are fertilized are as varied and almost as perfect as 
any of the most beautiful adaptations in the animal king- 
dom; and secondly to show that these contrivances have 
for their main object the fertilization of each flower by the 
pollen of another flower.”® As he proceeds in this work 

(1) Hist. of Eng. Thought, vol. 1, p. 408. 
(2) Cosmic Philos, Vol. 2 p. 406. 

The Idca of God, Pref. pp. xii, xx. 

(3) Fertilization of Orchids, pt. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. IOI 


he employs such phrases and makes such declarations as 
the following: “Many beautiful contrivances—Many curi- 
ous contrivances—Complex mechanism—Another pretty 
adaptation—The perfect adaptation of the parts—The per- 
fection of the contrivance—Hardly can adaptations be 
named more perfect—Complex trap! —How numerous and 
beautifully adapted the contrivances 2—If not accidental, 
and I cannot believe it to be accidental, what a singular 
case of adaptation ! ?—It is impossible to doubt that these 
points of structure and function are specifically adapted for 
self-fertilization. 1—The meaning of these several contri- 
vances is unmistakably clear.» —It has, I think, been 
shown that orchids exhibit an almost endless diversity of 
beautiful adaptations. When this or that part has been 
spoken of as contrived for some special purpose, it must 
not be supposed that it was originally always formed for 
this sole purpose.6 —The more I study nature, the more I 
become impressed with ever-increasing force with the con- 
clusion that the contrivances and beautiful adaptations 
transcend in an incomparable degree the contrivances and 
adaptations which the most imaginative man could sug- 
gest with unlimited time at his disposal.’”” 

With regard to these declarations, we remark as_ fol- 
lows: 
- (1.) Inthem Darwin went as far as it is possible to go 
in affirming the facts on which teleology and the argument 
from design are founded. He affirmed, affirmed again and 
again, kept on affirming, affirmed just as did Paley and 
Chalmers, that there are ingenious, beautiful, grand and 
useful arrangements, adaptations and contrivances in na- 
ture. He never denied the examples of adaptation and 
contrivance brought forward as proofs of purpose or de- 
sign, and he added many of his own. He even repeatedly 
employed the word purpose. He thus testifies to the reali- 
ty of the facts on whichteleology and the argument from 
design are founded. 

(2.) Itmatters nothing, so far asthe argument is con- 
cerned, that Darwin maintained that the adaptations and 
contrivances in nature were produced gradually and through 
natural selection. Contrivance and purpose are the same 
whether formed and executed suddenly or gradually. As 
to contrivances and purposes of God, it matters uot wheth- 

(1) Fertilization of Orchids, po. 2.43, 14, 17, 24, 28, 30. 
(2) p. 51. (3) p.53- (4) p.65 (5) p.70. (6) p. 351. (7) PD. 351. 


162 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


er they are accomplished immediatély by the exertion of 
his power or through natural laws and forces. In either 
case contrivance and purpose remain the same. 

(3.) Though Darwin did not employ the words adapfa- 
tion, contrivance and mechanism with a view to ascribing 
the mental acts of adaptation and design toGod as a living 
agent, he does ascribe them, unconsciously perhaps, to na- 
ture. After all, he did not and could not persist even un- 
consciously in the deification of natural forces and pro- 
cesses. Recognizing, as he did, the many ingenious, won- 
derful and exquisite adaptations and contrivances in nature 
as trandescending in an incomparable degree all that the 
most giften men could invent or imagine, it is not sur- 
prising that Darwin, as he himself confessed, was in a 
muddle in regard to teleology; that the teleological view 
and belief often came upon him with overwhelming power ; 
and that he escaped mainly by considering that in matters 
of such high import the human mind developed out of that 
of the monkey is not to be trusted. 

(4.) Let it not be forgotted that Darwin admitted and 
affirmed the facts on whichteleology is founded. He found 
in nature adaptation, contrivance and purpose, ingenious, 
curious; wonderful adaptations and contrivances. As there 
cannot be thought without a thinker, contrivance without 
a contriver, or design without a designer, either nature is a 
God, or there is a God of nature. In either case thereis a 
Being of thought and design incomparably superior to men. 
But nature is mere forces, laws and processes. There is, 
then, a Designer and Worker above nature. 

Another modern scientist who has borne testimony, 
perhaps unintentionally, in favor of the teleological view, 
is Sir J. Lubbock. We refer to him, not for the purpose of 
quoting his opinion, but for the sake of the facts which he 
presents. These facts are just such as teleologists employ 
in working out the argument from design. They relate to 
the fertilization of flower-plants by winged insects. There 
are many plants that, in order to flourish, must have cross- 
fertilization, the flowers being fertilized, not by their own, 
but by the pollen ofother flowers. As Sir J. Lubbock says, 
“The great object of the beauty, scent and honey of flowers 
is to secure cross-fertilization.” The wingless insects 
would not serve to carry the pollen from one flower to an- 
other. But some wingless insects, especially ants, are 
fond of sweet things. Hence the ants must be prevented 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM-AND TELEOLOGY. 163 


from reaching the nectar in the flowers in order that winged 
insects may go after it, and thus touch the pollen and carry 
it from flower to flower. In speaking ot the contrivances 
for preventing the crawling insects from obtaining access 
to the nectaries, this distinguished author, quoting from 
Belt, says: “Great attention has of late years been paid by 
naturalists to the wonderful contrivances amongst flowers 
to secure cross-fertilization, but the structure of many can- 
not, I believe, be understood, unless we take into consider- 
ation not only the beautiful adaptations for securing the 
services of the proper insect or bird, but also the contriv- 
ances for preventing insects, that would not be useful, from 
obtaining access to the nectar. Thus the immense length 
of the angreecum sesquipedale of Madagascar might, per- 
haps, have been more easily explained by Mr. Wallace, if 
this important purpose had been taken into account.” ! 

The contrivances employed for the purpose of prevent- 
ing the wingless insects from reaching the nectar in the 
flowers are very much varied. In some plants the leaves 
form around the stem a cup, which prevents the ants from 
ascending. In some species there is a cup at every joint 
of the stem. Some of these cups collect and retain rain 
and dew, and thus serve as traps to catch insects. 

In some cases the nectar is protected against wingless 
and climbing insects by smooth and slippery surfaces. In 
these cases the leaves often form a collar around the stem, 
with curved surfaces, over which even ants cannot climb. 
When they come to the slippery edge, they drop off and 
fallto the ground. In numerous species the access of 
ants and other creeping insects is prevented by spines or 
hairs, which constitute a veritable chevaux de frise. In 
many species access to the flowers is prevented by viscid 
secretions. The sticky substance is found generally below 
the flowers, but sometimes even on the flowers themselves.? 

Such are some of the contrivances for the purpose of 
preventing creeping insects from reaching the nectar of 
flowers. Itis a remarkable and significant fact that the 
aquatic plants, from which ants are precluded by the sur- 
rounding water, are not provided with any of these ingen- 
ious means of protection.®? One species, the polygonum 
amphibium, as it name implies, grows both on land and 

(1) Ants, Bees and Wasps, pp. 51-2. 


(2) Ants, Bees and Wasps, pp. 52-55. 
(3) Ants, Bees and Wasps,-p. 56. 


164 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


water. The individuals of this species that grow on the 
land are covered by innumerable viscid hairs, which effect- 
ually protect them against creeping insects. But the 
aquatic individuals have no such protection, being pro- 
tected by the water which surrounds them. 

Such are some of the examples of adaptation and con- 
trivance brought to view by later scientists, such as Dar- 
win and Lubbock. 

The question is, are such adaptations and contrivances 
the result of chance or of design? Are they accidental or 
are they intended? We have shown that when Darwin 
reflected on such questions, he was often overwhelmed. 
At one time he spokeof “the extreme difficulty or rather 
impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful 
universe as the result of blind chance or necessity.” ! At 
another time, in reference to a particular adaptation, he 
exclaimed, “I cannot believe it to be accidental.’2 It is 
not strange that Darwin so often recoiled from the doctrine 
of chance. The absurdity of endeavoring to account in 
this way for the countless useful, and beautiful arrange- 
ments, combinations, adaptations and contrivances in the 
world has been illustrated in various ways. The impossi- 
bility of constructing a verse of the. Ihad by throwing at 
random the letters of the Greek alphabet was employed as 
an illustration by Cicero and Fenelon. Tillotson of Eng- 
land illustrated as follows : “If twenty thousand blind men 

' were to set out from different places in England, remote 
from each other, what chance would there be that they 
would end by meeting all arranged in a row, in Salisbury 
plain?” Of course, the reply must be that such a result is 
a practical impossibility. And by parity of reasoning we 
must conclude that the hundreds and thousands and mil- 
ions of useful, beautiful and complicated adjustments, com- 
binations and adaptations that actually exist in the world 
could not be brought about without thought and design. 

Take, as an example, the human body. Its different 
organs and parts can perform their functions only when 
properly adjusted to one another. Every organ and every 
part must be in its place. An interchange of places by 
the head and shoulder, or by the stomach and lungs, or by 
the heart and liver, or by the nose and mouth, or by the 
eyes and ears, or by the brow and chin, or by the teeth 


(1) Life ane Letters, vol 1, p+ 282. 
(2) Fertilization of Orchids, p.53. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 165 


and toe-nails, or by the arms and legs, or by the hands and 
feet, or by the fingers and toes, or by other organs, or by 
other parts, would in most cases prove disastrous. But 
how could all these organs and parts be properly placed 
and adjusted without thought, foresightand design? Sup- 
pose that all the organs and parts of a human body were 
already in existence, but separated from one another; sup- 
pose that the head, heart, lungs, stomach, liver, kidneys, 
intestines, neck, shoulders, arms, legs, eyes, ears, nose, 
mouth, chin, brow, hands, feet, fingers, toes, joints, mus- 
cles, bones, sinews, veins, arteries, nerves, and all the other 
organs and parts, were already existing separately, could a 
human body be formed by throwing together these organs 
and parts at random? How often would these many or- 
gans and parts have to be thrown in order to construct a 
human body? Could a human body be thus constructed 
at all? 

The impossibility of sucha result is shown by the 
following illustration: Take the twenty-six letters of the 
English alphabet. Suppose that each one of these was 
engraved ona piece of metal, twenty-six pieces of metal 
in all, and that aman were to attempt to arrange the letters 
in their usual order, a, b, c, andso on, by throwing together 
these pieces of metal at random. The difficulty, or rather 
the utter impossibility, of arranging the alphabet in this 
way is demonstrated by the immense number of possible 
combinations of the twenty-six letters. According to the 
law, of permutation, the number of possible combinations 
of the twenty-six letters is represented by the nnmbers 1, 
2, 3, 4, 5,6, and so on, up to 26 and including 26 multiplied 
together. The number thus resulting is, 403 septillions, 
291 sextillions, 461 quintillions, 126 quadrillions, 605 tril- 
lions, 635 billions, 584 millions; or, in figures alone, 403.- 
291,461,126,605,635,584,000,000—27 places of figures. This 
immense number shows the impossibility of arranging the 
letters of the English alphabet by random throws. But 
this number is incomprehensible by the human mind. Its 
vastness may be faintly suggested by the following repre- 
sentation. Ifa millionof men (1,000,000) were to work 
300 days each year during a million of years, writing out 
combinations of the letters of the English alphabet, and 
were to cover each day forty pages with 100 combinations 
on each page, the number of combinations written out 
would be only a fraction of the whole number of possible 


166 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


combinations. The number of possible combinations, and 
of combinations thus written, are as follows : 
403,291,461,126,605,635,584,000,000 
1,200,000,000,000,000,000 
403,291,450,926,605,635,584,000,000 

It is thus shown that it would require an inconceiv- 
ably greater number of men than one million, living and 
working during an inconceivably longer time than one mil- 
lion years, to write out the possible combinations of the 
twenty-six letters of the English alphabet. All this shows 
the impossibility of the proper arrangement of these let- 
ters by chance; that is, without thought and design. 

But this is not all; there are more than twenty-six or- 
gans and parts to be arranged and adjusted in the forma- 
tion of every human body. There are in the human frame 
232 bones, and when we take into consideration the joints, 
muscles, sinews, veins, nerves, and all the parts and organs, 
we may well say the arrangements and adjustments are 
indeed countless. 

The different parts and adjustments in the human 
hand alone exceed in number the letters of the English 
alphabet. There are the five fingers (including the thumb) 
all differing in length and thickness; three joints in each 
of the four fingers and two in the thumb, fourteen joints in 
all ; three little bones, differing in length and thickness, in 
each of the four fingers and two in the thumb, fourteen in 
all. Thus in one hand there are twenty-eight (28) joints 
and bones together, to say nothing about nails, sinews, 
muscles, veins and nerves. 

The impossibility of the adjustment of these twenty- 
eight bones and joints by blind chance is demonstrated by 
the illustration above given. Thisimpossibility is doubled 
by the fact of the existence of nails, muscles, sinews, nerves 
and veins in the hand. It is quadrupled by the existence 
ofa second hand. This quadrupled impossibility is again 
increased several fold by the many parts and their adjust- 
ments in the formation ofthe eye. And in view of all the 
organs and parts of the human body, with their countless 
combinations, the impossibility of formation by chance be- 
comes as great as the literal passing of a camel through a 
needle’s eye, which is possible only with God. 

But farther, we must take into consideration the vast 
number of actual adjustments. There are supposed to be 





APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 167 


about a billion and a half of human beings in the world. 
Children are born at the rate of one per second, and the 
great majority are born in a normal and proper condition. 
Perhaps about only one in a thousand is born deformed. 
Many millions of infants come into the world every year 
with their bones, muscles, sinews, nerves, veins and all 
their parts and organs properly arranged and adjusted. 
We must then add to the problem the vast number of ad- 
justments in the bodies of the millions and millions of the 
human race. Besides, there are the bodies of the lower 
animals and the plants and flowers. The utter impossibi- 
lity of theaccomplishment of these countless arrangements 
and adjustments without thought and design is but faintly 
represented by the conception of the formation not of one 
book only, but of a countless number of books, by random 
throwing of letters. Even a minute contrivance in the 
fertilization of orchids drew from Darwin, the exclamation, 
“T cannot believe it to be accidental.”! 


{i} po 53; 


ROE Eee, 


THE BIBLICAL COSMOGONY. 





We holdthat the probabilities that are urgedin favor of 
Darwinism are logically counter-balanced, and more than 
counter-balanced, by the probabilities that may be urged in 
favor of the hypothesis of special creation. 

I. In the first place, the Mosaic cosmogony, which sets 
forth this hypothesis, is wonderfully correct. 

We do not claim that the perfect accuracy of this cos- 
mogony can be shown in the present state of human 
knowledge, though we confidently expect this will be done 
hereafter in the progress of science. But we do claim un- 
hesitatingly that the scientific accuracy of the first and 
second chapters of Genesis zz the main can be, or rather 
has been, vindicated. And we further claim that this fact 
indicates that the author possessed superhuman know- 
ledge. For no man, who lived in times preceding our own, 
could, by the exercise of his own powers alone, have at- 
tained to the knowledge of the scientific facts presented 
in these chapters. Some of these facts are as follows: 

1. That the heavens and the earth, nature, all things, 
the universe, had a beginning. 

2. That nature, the creation, the universe, is a consis- 
tent whole. 

3. That all things existed at first in a state of chaos, in 
which there was neither light nor life. 

4. That the introduction of light and life, and the 
bringing of the chaotic materials into a state of order and 
beauty, were a progressive work. 

5. The existence of light independent of the sun. 

6. The formation of continents by the emergence of 
land from the water. 

7. The existence of vegetable before animal life. 

8. Thatthe waters swarmed with life before land ani- 
mals appeared. 

9. That fishes, birds, reptiles and beasts, all appeared 
before the creation of man. 


COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 169 


10. That man is comparatively a late production. 

11. Theunity of the human race. 

12. That man appeared last and as the head and master 
of all the lower animals. 

It is indisputable that the Mosaic economy is much 
more sober, truth-like and accurate than any of the ac- 
counts of creation that have come down to us from former 
times, and that it sets forth scientific facts which were un- 
known until revealed by modern science. Its accuracy 
and superiority have been recognized by many distinguish- 
ed scientists. Even the sceptical German scientist, Heec- 
kel, expresses his “just and sincere admiration for the 
Jewish law-giver’s grand insight into nature and his sim- 


ple and natural hypothesis of creation,’ though he 
says he can do this “without discovering in it a so-called 
divine revelation.” He chargeson this Biblical cosmogony 


only /wo errors—the geocentric and anthropocentric theo- 
ries, the first of which it does not set forth and the second 
is true. ! 

That distinguished scientist, Prof. Dana, did not dis- 
cover any errors at all in the Scripture account of creation. 
In reference to the opening page of the Bible, he lays 
down the proposition that ‘¢hzs document, if true, ts of at- 
vine origin. For no human mind was witness of the 
events, and no such mind in the early age of the world, 
unless gifted with superhuman intelligence, could have. 
contrived such a scheme.” After setting forth the various 
points embraced in the first and second chapters of Gene- 
sis, he makes the following emphatic declaration: “The 
record in the Bible is, therefore, profoundly philosophical 
in the scheme of creation which it presents. It is both 
true and divine.” 2 

Prof. Guyot, of Princeton University, another able and 
accomplished scientist, held the same views. Prof. Dana, 
in presenting his views in regard to the cosmogony of the 
Bible, remarks that ‘they are essentially those brought 
out by Prof. Guyot in his lectures,” > The latter, writing 
in 1883, says, in regard to his own views: “Prof. J. D. Dana 
did me the honor to endorse them, almost in full, in his re- 
markable article on Sczence and the Bible, in the January 
nuinber of the Bibliotheca Sacra in 1856. He alsoadopted 
them in his Manual of Geology, which first appeared in 

(1) Atst. of Creation, vol. 1, p. 37-38. 

(2) Geology, pp. 847, 850. (3) p. 846. 


170 ’ COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


1863.” | This endorsement and adoption appear also in 
the third edition of his Geology, 18/9. Prof. Guyot further 
makes these declarations: “We may affirm that the best 
explanation science is now able to give, on this great topic, 
is also that which best explains, in all its details, the first 
chapter of Genesis and does it justice.” —‘‘To a sincere and 
unprejudiced mind it must be evident that these great out- 
lines are the same as those which modern science enables 
us to trace.” 2 

Prof. Winchell testifies as follows: “To my mind the 
inspired epic of Moses presents an accordance with the 
geological history of the world which is almost, if not 
quite, supernatural; and is made more intelligible and 
more wonderful in the light whichscience has thrown upon 
it. Even admitting the impossibility of a circumstantial 
harmony, all conflict has forever vanished.” And again: 
“The author of Genesis has yiven us an account, which, 
when rightly understood, conforms admirably to the indi- 
cations of latest science. * * * * We can show that 
it exemplifies a most impressive harmony between the 
utterances of trusting inspiration and the generalizations 
of rigorous science.” 3 

The Duke of Argyle, a man of ability and scientific 
culture, says: “Certain it is, that whatever new views may 
now be taken of the origin and authorship of Genesis, it 
stands alone among the ‘traditions of mankind in the won- 
derful simplicity and grandeur of itswords, * * * * 
The meaning of those words seein always to be a meaning 
ahead of science.” 4 

Sir JW..Dawson,.Gebabe Esk: 3.0 MeGile ine 
- versity, Montreal, in his various works, vindicates the 
scientific accuracy of the Biblical cosmogony. In one of 
them he expresses his approval of the Duke of Argyle’s 
declarations quoted above. ® 

Many other testimonies of the sameimport might be 
given, but we deem those presented above sufficient. 

As we have said, we do not think that the perfect ac- 
curacy of the Biblical cosmogony in scientific matters can, 
at the present time, be demonstrated, though we confident- 
ly expect this to be accomplished hereafter, As science 

(1) Creation, pp. 9 and to. . 

(2) Creation, pp. 134, 135. 

(2) Recon. of Scienceand Relig , pd. 222, 358. 

(4) Primeval Man, pp, 36, 37. 
(5) Ortgin of the World, p. 4. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. reat 


advances, the scientific accuracy of the opening chapters 
becomes more and more evident. But already a good deal 
has been accomplished. We lay down the following pro- 
positions as clear and indisputable: 

i. The cosmogony contained in Genesis, in point of 
sobriety, clearness and truthfulness, is in contrast with all 
the cosmogonies and mythologies current among the an- 
cient nations in general. 

2. This cosmogony is admired for its simplicity, clear- 
ness and grand insight into nature by the greatest sceptics 
of our age, of whom Heeckel is an example and representa- 
tive. 

3. In order to prove it incorrect, and thus discredit it as 
a divine revelation, one of the ablest and most distinguish- 
ed sceptics of the age charged upon it two errors—the geo- 
centric and anthropocentric theories; the former of which 
is not contained in Genesis, and the latter of which, as 
shown by plain facts, is a true theory, and not an error 
at all. 

4. Many of the ablest and most accomplished scientists 
of the age, (including some Darwinists), Dana, Guyot, 
Winchell, the Duke of Argyle, Sir J. W. Dawson, and 
others, find no error at all in the Biblicalcosmogony, The 
errors, if not very few and very small, would certainly have 
been detected by these men. 

5. This account of creation is accurate, even in regard. 
to the existence of light and heat independent of the sun, 
the appearance of aquatic before terrestrial animals, the 
emergence of land from among the water, and in regard 
to some other points which the unassisted human mind 
could not know in ancient times. 

The inference, then, may be legitimately drawn that 
the Biblical account of creation is characterized by a very 
high degree of scientific accuracy, an accuracy to be ac- 
counted for only by the hypothesis that the writer 
possessed superhuman intelligence, or was guided bya 
su pernatural influence. 

The fact that the Bible is not intended toteach science, 
and is not a scientific book, only makesthe scientific ac- 
curacy of the first chapters of Genesis more remarkable 
and suggestive. The fact that the writer perhaps did not 
understand some of his own declarations strengthens the 
provabiuity that he was guided by supernatural inspira- 
tion. The hypothesis that Moses did not write the Penta- 


172 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


teuch, but that it was written long after his time, is of no 
avail, so far as the subject in hand is concerned; for Genesis 
and the other books of the Pentateuch were written at 
least before the Christian era, and the knowledge of many 
things embraced in the cosmogony could not be attained 
by the unassisted human mind until after the advent of 
modern science. The probability then remains that the 
writer of Genesis possessed superhuman intelligence, or 
was divinely inspired. 

This probability is countenanced and strengthened by 
another, viz : the probability that ¢re moral ideas and laws 
of the Pentateuch hada supernatural origin. The Deca- 
logue as a moral code is of unparalleled excellence. There 
may be other codes somewhat like it, but there is nothing 
equal to it in all literature. But the Decalogue is not the 
only gem of morality contained in the Pentateuch. When 
Christ was asked which is the great commandment of the 
law, he replied, ‘‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
thy heart and with allthy soul and with all thy mind. This 
is the first and great commandment. And the second is 
like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On 
these two commandments hang all the law and the pro- 
phets.” | Thus the Great Teacher took the Pentateuch as 
the root and staminaof his own moral instructions. He 
corrected mistaken interpretations, but pointed out no er- 
rors in the original text.2 Among the many excellences 
of the Pentateuchal teaching is the injunction in regard to 
the treatment of foreigners. Again, and again, and again, 
did the Mosaic laws command the Jews not to oppress or 
to vex the stranger, ® but to love him and treat him as 
one of themselves. These laws make special provision 
for the stranger, the fatherless and the wzdow. 4 

Ideas so broad, exalted and philanthropic are not 
found in any other moral or political code of ancient times. 
Nor in fact has any modern nation attained to the high 
standard of morality as set forth in the Decalogue and the 
national laws of the Israelites. 

Whence came this exalted morality which has been 
accepted, but not surpassed nor improved, by the most en- 
lightened nations of the earth? It is of no avail to deny 
the Mosaic authorship of the Decalogue and to say that 
it originated long after the time of Moses. It originated 

(t) Matt. 22:37-40.. Deut: 6:4. (2) Matt. 5:31 48. 

(4)) Bs .“2219) 923 5 (1) Lev. 23:22. Deut. 24°19-22. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 173 


among the Israelites. The question to be determined is 
whether the ten commandments and the elevated ideas of 
the Mosaic code were invented by the narrow and bigoted 
Jewish mind or came from God. According to the ac- 
count given in Exodus, and recognized throughout the 
other Scriptures, the Decalogue was a special gift and reve-- 
lation from Heaven. This is at least a possible origin ; 
for God could give the Decalogue to the Israelites in a 
supernatural way. But the origination of the Decalogue 
by the unaided intellect of a Jew seems an impossibility. 
The superhuman intelligence necessary to the origination 
ofthe moral ideas contained in the Decalogue and other 
laws of the Israelites suggests, therefore, the probability, 
if not the certainty, of the divine inspiration of the writer 
of the Pentateuch. This probability strengthens the pre- 
vious probability suggested by the superhuman intelli- 
gence brought to view in the Mosaic cosmogony. 

II. But there is another fact to be considered, ¢he excel- 
lence of the early Hebrew theology. In Genesis and Exodus, 
throughout the Pentateuch, and throughout the Old Testa- 
ment as well as the New, the monotheistic doctrine is 
everywhere and consistently taught that there is but one 
only the living and true God, the universal Creator and 
Ruler, who is inconceivably great and glorious, holy, just 
and good, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. But 
polytheism, materialism and idolatry prevailed among all 
the ancient nations. It is indeed true that there is reason 
to believe that monotheism was the original belief of man- 
kind. But it is certain that this belief gave way to poly- 
theism in very earlytimes. Polytheism, idolatry and other 
errors were almost universal among the Assyrians, Baby- 
lonians, Egyptians and other ancient nations. If there 
were monotheists among the ancient Egyptians, they suc- 
cumbed to the polytheism, idolatry, beast-worship and 
other abuses and abominations which prevailed around 
them. It is true that the Israelites, their kings, priests 
and prophets, and the great mass of the people, relapsed 
into polytheism and idolatry again and again. There was 
almost a constant conflict between monotheism and poly- 
theism, between the worship of Jehovah and the idolatrous 
worship of false gods. The formertriumphed. For many 
years previous to the coming of Cnrist, polytheism and 
idolatry were unknown among the Israelites. But how’ 
was this success attained? First, there were true and lofty 


174 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


ideas concerning the unity, spirituality, power, majesty, 
holiness, justice, benevolence and other attributes of God 
clearly expressed in their books and were put in circula- 
tion among the people, Second, there was a succession of 
prophets, teachers and writers who inculcated these true 
and lofty theological ideas. But how did these ideas c»n- 
cerning God originate? Why did not the Israelites sink 
into polytheism, idolatry, beast-worship and other abomi- 
nations, like all other ancient nations? The account given 
in the Hebrew Scriptures is that the Hebrew theology was 
communicated to chosen men by divine revelation, and 
that the protest against polytheism and idolatry, amid op- 
position and persecution, was by men whose souls were 
touched and directed by a divine influence. The cause 
thus assigned is at least adequate to account for the sub- 
lime theology of the Hebrews and for its preservation amid 
all opposition. The naturalistic and humanitarian view, 
that the superiority of the Hebrew theology was due to the 
extraordinary talent or genius of the Jewish people, nar- 
row-minded, ignorant and prejudiced though they were, 
assigns an inadequate cause, and is therefore inadmissible. 
The hypothesis that Moses and other Jews, by their own 
talents and genius, rose not only above their own nation, 
but above all the nations of antiquity, and became the 
theological teachers of the most enlightened people in all 
ages, is not easily credible. In view of all the facts, the 
hypothesis suggestedin the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, 
and accepted by Christian people in all ages; namely, that 
“holy men of God spakeas they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” 
is adequate, and is at least probable. Here then is another 
probability which every candid investigator and reasoner 
must take into consideration in connection with the super- 
human intelligence manifested in the Biblical account of 
creation. 

III. Still farther: some ofthe Biblical writings have such 
moral power and exert so blessed an influence, are so well 
adapted to human wants, and especially to the wants of 
Christians, and are so excellent in various ways, that it is 
improbable that they could have been produced by minds 
merely human, especially by Jewish minds. We refer to 
the Psalms, Proverbs and Prophecies of the Old Testament 
and to the Gospels cf the New. But for the sake of brevity 
we will take the Psalms as an example. They are wonder- 
fulas mere poetry. Fenelon said: “No Greek or Latin 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 175 


poetry is comparable to the Psalms.” Melancthon: ‘They 
are the most elegant work extant in the world.” Milton: 
“Not in their divine argument alone, but in the very criti- 
cal art of composition, they may be easily made appear, 
over all the kinds of lyric poesy, to be incomparable.” 
Schlegel in his “A/zstory of Literature: “They possess a 
splendor and sublimity which, considered merely as 
poetry, excite our wonder, and disdain all comparison 
with any other composition.” 

The Psalms are also wonderful for their matter. They 
anticipate and even exceed the best thoughts and senti- 
ments of the most devoted, learned and cultured Christians 
of modern times. Dr. Shedd has said: ‘The lyric writers 
of the Christian church have been distinguished for excel- 
lence in proportion as they reproduced the Psalter in the 
forms of modern metrical composition.” Dr. Tholuck: 
“The Psalms are the hymn book for all times—they are 
flowers that always bloom in the beauty of youth.” Lamar- 
tine: “David is the Psalmist of eternity.” Gladstone: 
“They have dwelt in the Christian heart, and at the very 
centre of that heart, and wherever the pursuits of the inner 
life have been most largely conceived and cultivated, there, 
and in the same proportion, the Psalms have towered over 
every other vehicle of devotion.” Such are the Psalms— 
all of them written by Jews, and many of them, among 
these the grandest and most beautiful and most edifying, 
written by a Jewish shepherd more than three thousand 
years ago. Such are the facts. How are these glorious 
and elegant Psalms to be accounted for? Since every ef- 
fect must have an adequate cause, these Hebrew lyrics 
must have had a higher origin than the hard, uncultivated 
Jewish intellect. If the Hebrew Psalmists had not the aid 
of a divine influence, their productions are unaccountable. 
The argument has been well stated by the celebrated John 
Bright, of England, as reported by Gladstone: 

“John Bright has told me that he would be content to 
stake upon the Book of Psalms, as it stands, the great 
question whether there is or is not a divine revelation. It 
was not to him conceivable how a work so widely severed 
from all the known productions of antiquity, and standing 
upon a level so much higher, could be accounted for ex- 
cept by a special and extraordinary aid calculated to pro- 
duce special and extraordinary results ; for it is reasonable, 
nay needful, to presume a due correspondence between the 


176 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


cause and the effect. Nor does this opinion appear to be 
otherwise than just. If Bright did not possess the special 
qualifications of the scholar or the critic, he was, I con- 
ceive, a very capable judge of the moral and religious ele- 
ments in any case that had been brought before him by 
his personal experience.”’! 

But it would not be logical to restrict divine inspiration 
to the Psalms. If they are divinely inspired, there is a 
presumption that other Hebrew Scriptures also are in- 
spired, and among these the Pentateuch, including Gene- 
sis and the account ofcreation. If there is divine revelation 
anywhere in the Bible, it is quite probable or even certain 
to be found in the opening chapters of the first book. If 
there is a Supernatural element in the Psalms, it is almost — 
impossible to resist the conclusion that supernatural in- 
- telligence was employed in writing the first two chapters 
of Genesis. 

IV. Once more: this probability is strengthened, made 
indeed, as we think, overwhelming, by facts brought to 
view in the New Testament. Jesus Christ is the world’s 
greatest teacher. Such is the verdict of enlightened peo- 
ple. He taught with authority. He had the right andthe 
power thus to teach. Even J. S. Mill, who had atheism 
instilled into him when a child and retained his atheistic 
views to an advanced age, yet after mature deliberation 
came to the conclusion that there are indications of a 
Creator; and that the grounds for belief in His existence 
“are sufficient to take away all antecedent improbability” 
of a revelation from Him.? Mill even declared ‘“‘that to the 
conception of the rational sceptic, it remains a possibility 
that Christ actually was what he supposed himself to be— 
a inan charged with a special, express and unique com- 
mission from God to lead men to truth and virtue.”? But 
Christ’s belief in his own divine commission is certainly 
good proof of‘its reality. He was no self-deceived enthu- 
siast. He knew more about himself, and is a more com- 
petent and trustworthy witness in the case, than sceptics 
who lived many centuries after Him. Even to most scep- 
tics the supernatural commission of Christ and his super- 
human character are not only possibilities, but probabili- 
ties. Rousseau exclaimed: ‘“Yes,if the life and death of 
1) The Impregnable Rock, p. 183 

) Three Essays, pp. 212, 213. 


( 
(2 
(3) P. 255 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 177 


Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus 
were those ofa God.”' He also said: “Consider the books 
of the philosophers, with all’ their pomp, how little they 
are compared with the Gospel.2 Is it possible that a book 
so sublime and so simple should be the work of a man? 
* * * No Jewish authors were capable either of such 
diction or such morality; and the Gospel has marks of 
truth so grand and striking, so perfectly inimitable, that 
the inventor would be more astonishing than the hero.’ 
Goethe, who was a genuine doubter, styled Christ the Dz- 
vine Man, and said: “I pay him devout reverence, I bow 
before him.”2 Renan, the late French sceptic, called Him 
“the incomparable man to whom the universal conscience 
has decreed the title of the Son of God.”4 

Christ in his own person and character was faultless. 
He is the only one so represented in all the Bible. All 
other men mentioned in it are declared to be morally im- 
perfect. Healone of all men is represented as sinless. He 
himself acknowledged no crime, sin, fault, or imperfection. 
He taught his disciples in praying to say, ‘Forgive us our 
debts,” but he prayed not thus himself. He prayed in their 
presence, but not wth them; nor did he /ead them in pray- 
er. Here then is one who believed himself sinless and 
perfect, and claimed as due to himself the confidence, rev- 
erence and submission of allmen, and yet withal so meek, 
so gentle, so calm, so dignified, so benevolent, so self-sacri- 
ficing ! 

In his teaching he was at once simple and sublime. 
He is the one grand teacher of true religion and true morali- 
ty. The sermon on the mount, the Lord’s Prayer, the 
Golden Rule, and many of his sayings, for brevity, sim- 
plicity, comprehensiveness and depth of meaning, can be 
matched by nothing found in all human literature. As a 
teacher, both by example and precept, he confessedly has 
no equal among the moralists and philosophers; and the 
_ intelligent world acknowledges Him as a teacher sent from 
God. 
Now Christ, as the divinely appointed teacher of the 
world in morals and reiigion, recognized the divine authori- 
ty of the Old Testament Scriptures, and among these ¢he Jaw 

(1) Emtle,1 4, p. Des 

(2) Emile, ine. te 


309 
(3) Life and Works of Goethe, by Lewes vol. 2, p. 307. 
(4) Vie de Jesus, chs. 1,28. 


178 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


that is, the Pentateuchal books. He spake as follows: 

“And as touching the dead, that they rise, have ye not 
read in the book of Moses how in the bush God spake unto 
him, saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac 
and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but 
of the living. !—For had ye believed Moses, ye would have 
believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his 
writings, how shall ye believe my words. 2—They have 
Moses and the Prophets; let: them hear them. * *.* If 
they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they 
repent, though one rose from the dead. ?—These are the 
words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, 
that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the 
law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms con- 
cerning me.” 4 

Thus Christ referred to and quoted the d00k of Moses, 
the /aw of Moses and the wv7tings of Moses as a part of the 
Scriptures, and therefore as being divinely true and authori- 
tative. That he so regarded the Scriptures is made evi- 
dent by such declarations as these: ‘The Scripture cannot 
be broken. °—Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures. 6— 
How then shallthe Scriptures be fulfilled.’ 7 These and 
other similar declarations of Christ indicate that he regard- 
ed the Scriptures as possessing divine authority, and not 
only as true but as infallible. And He quoted and re- 
ferred tothe writings of Moses just as he quoted and re- 
ferred to the other Scriptures. It is in evidence, then, that 
Jesus of Nazareth, the one sinless and faultless man, who 
regarded himselfas ‘charged witha special, express and 
unique commission from God to lead mankind to truth and 
virtue,” and who has been recognized accordingly by the 
enlightened portion ofthe human race as the world’s di- 
vinely qualified and appointed teacher in morals and re- 
ligion, regarded and treated the Pentateuch as containing a 
divine revelation and as possessing divine authority. All 
this implies that the Pentateuch, as well as the other Scrip- 
tures, makes known facts and ideas, the knowledge of 
which could not have been attained by the unaided facul- 
ties of thehuman mind. ‘This’applies to Genesis as well as 
to the other books of the Pentateuch, and to the tst and 
2d chapters of Genesis as well as to the succeeding chap- 

(1) Mark 12:26-7. 


(2) John 5:46,47. (3) Luke 16:31,2. (4) Luke 24:44. 
(5) John 10:35. (6) Matt, 22:19. (7) Matt. 26:54. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 179 


ters. There is nothing to indicate that these opening 
chapters are exceptional, and that they are destitute of the 
divine element,i. e., the superhuman knowledge and the 
divine authority which the Great Teacher ascribes to the 
rest of Genesis and to the other books of the Pentateuch, 
and to the Psalms and Prophecies. Onthe other hand He 
expressly referred to and quoted the Mosaic account of crea- 
tion as divinely true and authoritative, as follows: ‘Have 
ye not read, that He, whzch made them in the beginning, 
made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a 
man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; 
and they shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more 
twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined togeth- 
er, letnct man part asunder.1 And again: “He saith unto 
them, A7oses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered 
you to putaway your wives; but from the beginning, tt was 
not so.’ 2 Thus Christ quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as his- 
torically true and divinely authoritative. He even claimed 
for these passages in the Mosaic account of creation as high 
authority as for the law of Moses itself. 

Now the value of testimony depends on the character 
of the one who gives it. The witness in this case is Christ, 
whoclaimed to have an extraordinary commission from 
Heaven andcalled himself sometimes the Son of God, 
though oftener the Son of Man. It seems- to be almost 
blasphemous to say that his testimony to the truthfulness 
ofthe Biblical account of creation and other Old Testament 
writings is probadly true, since we regard him as Divine and 
Infallible. But if any one regards the testimony teferred 
to as being only prodadbly true, even he must regard the 
Biblical account of creation also as being probably true. 
Further he must regard the former probability as strength- 
ening allthe probabilities that precede it in our order of 
presentation. 

We use the words hypothesis and probability in this 
connection for two reasons, one of which is that we are 
speaking of facts and arguments which, taken separately 
and singly, do perhaps produce only probability, and not 
absolute certainty; though these facts and arguments 
taken together do, as we think, produce certainty ; and 
when combined with other evidences, internal and external, 
of superhuman intelligence and divine inspiration, they 
produce sufficient certainty to preclude all reasonable 


(1) Matt. 19:4-6. (2) Matt. 19:8. 


1 SO COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


doubt. The other reason is that these facts and arguments, 
even if accepted as proving onlv probabilities, are sufficient 
to counter-balance, and more than counter-balance, the 
probabilities employed on the other side. We indeed be- 
lieve that the facts above presented constitute a nearer ap- 
proach to what logicians call moral certainty than all the 
arguments adduced in favor of Darwinism. 

Take, as an example, the Darwinian argument drawn 
from the existence of rudimentary organs, divided, as they 
are, into two classes, the atrophied and minimized organs, 
and the nascent ones. The atrophied, rudimentary organs 
are supposed to have been possessed in fullsize and in use- 
ful condition by ancestral races. But this is a mere hy- 
pothesis, and the only evidence in its favor is that the hy- 
pothesis is supposed to be necessary to account for the ex- 
istence of these organs in their present diminutive and use- 
less form. Then this hypothesis, which, if at all better 
than a mere conjecture is only a probability, is employed to 
prove that the animals possessing these organs have de- 
scended from ancient races that possessed them in full and 
useful form. This hypothesis of descent is based upon the 
idea that the possession of these organs by living animals 
can beexplainedin no other way. Finally, this last hy- 
pothesis is employed to support the main Darwinian hy 
pothesis, that all species, both of animals and plants, liv- 
ing and dead, have been derived froma few primordial 
forms, or more probably from one. 

As to nascent organs, we have already shown that 
their existence, according to the principles of Darwinism, is 
an impossibility, since incipient organs must be utterly use- 
less for the present.! But there are rudimentary organs 
that seem to be taking entirely too immense a period of 
time for disappearance by disuse and atrophy. Hence has 
been formed the hypothesis that such organs are not des- 
tined to disappear, but though useless now, are destined to 
be usefulin the future. The only ground forthis hypothe- 
sis is the notion that it alone satisfactorily accounts for the 
persistence of these organs in spite of the war which natu- 
ral selection issupposed to make on everything that is in- 
jurious or useless to the possessor. The hypothesis amounts 
to this, that various species of animals are being prepared 
for some /uéure environment by the appearance and growth 
of parts and organs useless in their present environment. 

(1) Chap. 8. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. IS; 


And this somewhat rickety hypothesis comes in as a sup- 
port, and even as a part, of the general hypothesis of evolu- 
tion. 

Take, as another example, the embryological argument. 
We have already pointed out the weakness of this argu- 
ment. ! But notice how it proceeds. First there is an 
effort made by some Darwinists to uphold the hypothesis 
that the human embryo, in its development, takes on the 
form and appearance of the embryos of the lower animals 
in general, from the lowest to the highest; and then this 
hypothesis is employed to uphold the hypothesis that man, 
inreaching his present condition, passed through all stages 
of existence, from the lowest to the highest. We showed, 
however, that the first hypothesis was rejected by Darwin 
and some ot the most distinguished Darwinists. There re- 
mains the hypothesis, however, that the embryos of fishes, 
reptiles, birds, beasts and human beings are alike, because 
they /ook alike. And this hypothesis of actual likeness, 
founded on seeming likeness, is made the basis of this other 
hypothesis that all these animals, fishes, reptiles, birds, 
beasts and men, must have had a common descent, it be- 
ing in reality assumed that the embryological likenesscan 
be accounted for only by the hypothesis of common de- 
scent. Thus the argument is not only analogical, but hy- 
pothetical. 

These are specimens of the hypotheses and _ probabili- 
ties involved in the Darwinian argumentation. We are 
far from saying that this argumentation is throughout 
without weight. But we claim that its weight is more 
than counter-balanced by the facts and arguments which 
we have above presented. Let us recapitulate: 

1. There is the character of the Hebrew cosmogony ttself. 

How is it to be accounted for? Though it originated 
in an age of fables and myths, it is simple, clear, sober, 
straight-forward and truth-like; and it is admitted to be 
very truthful. Hzeeckel admired it for its clearness, sub- 
limity and correctness. Professors Gray, Dana, Guyot, 
Parsons, Winchell, Dawson, and others, among the most 
competent and distinguished of modern scientists, testify 
that so far asthey can see all its statements are scientifi- 
cally correct. But how did this wonderful cosmogony 
which, thousands of years beforehand, anticipated the reve- 
lations of modern science, originate? How is it to be ac- 


(1) Chap. 9. 


182 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


counted for? It must have resulted, like every other phe- 
nomenon, from an adequate cause. But the unaided in- 
tellect of an ancient Jew or Jews is not a cause sufficient to 
account for the origin of thisremarkable production called 
the Mosaic cosmogony. Yet, to speak after the manner of 
some Darwinian advocates, we must choose between this 
hypothesis and that of superhuman intelligence. These 
two are the only hypotheses in the case. But the former 
hypothesis is inadequate, since ancient Jews were incapa- 
ble of anticipating the revelations of modern science. The 
only alternative isto accept the other hypothesis as a_ pro- 
visional and working one until something better shall have 
been suggested. This hypothesis furnishes an adeguate 
cause ; for certainly God could: communicate superhuman 
knowledge to the author of Genesis. This hypothesis is 
quite ancient, a fact suggested by the oft repeated declara- 
tion that God spake to Moses. 

2. This hypothesis and probability that the Biblical ac- 
count of creation originated in supernatural knowledge are 
countenanced and strengthened by the unparalleled excel- 
lence of the moral code of the ancient Hebrews. 

How did that code, summarized in the Decalogue and 
admitted to be faultless and perfect, originate? It originated, 
at some tyne, no matter when, among the ancient Hebrews, 
a somewhat rude and barbarous people. But how? Here 
again we seem to be shut up to one of these two hypotheses: 
that some ancient Jew invented the Ten Commandments 
or that they originated in superhuman knowledge. But it 
seems impossible that a narrow-minded and bigoted He- 
brew, living away back in barbarous times, could invent a 
moral code that the whole enlightened wars regards as 
faultless and as the work of God. 

Hence for the present we must accept the hypothesis 
that the Decalogue is a gift of God to men. ‘This is at least 
a possible origin and it is the one suggested in the Bible 
itself. “And the Lord said unto Moses, write thou these 
words.” |! But if God ‘revealed the Decalogue to Moses, 
why would He not also reveal to Moses the way in which he 
created and fitted up the world? 

3. The excellence of theearly Hebrew theology ts another 
Sact to be accounted for. 

As wehave pointed out, the theological ideas incul- 
cated in Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch are 


(x) Ex. 34:27. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 183 


unsurpassed anywhere and are equaled only in other parts 
of the Bible. ‘the very best that the ablest theologians can 
now do is to reproduce the idéas concerning God contained 
in the Pentateuchal books. And these ideas concerning 
the unity, character and glorious attributes of God are 
maintained throughout the entire Scriptures, covering a 
period of fifteen hundred years, though polytheism, idola- 
try and abominable worship prevailed among all the other 
nations, and the Israelites themselves were continually 
falling into these errors and abominations. How are these 
phenomena to be accounted for? The provisional hypothe- 
sis of superhuman intelligence and a divine influence must 
be accepted. 

4. The great excellence of certain parts of the Old Tes- 
tament, especially of the Psalms, is another phenomenon 
which demands explanation. We have shown the unparal- 
leled literary and moral excellence ofthese ancient lyrics 
by the testimony of Melanchon, Fenelon, Milton, Schlegel, 
Shedd, Tholuck, Lamartine, Bright and Gladstene. How 
came those ancient Hebrews, living in the dark ages, in 
this department of literature to beat the world? We must 
give the hypothesis of superhuman intelligence for an an- 
swer to the question or else give no answer at all. 

5. Lastly the life and death, character and teaching of 
Jesus Christ suggest to most rational minds the hypothe- 
sis that he possessed superhuman intelligence and hada 
divine commission to teach mankind. As wehave shown, 
the ablest sceptics of modern times, Rousseau, Goethe, 
Mill, Renan and others, when contemplating some of the 
striking facts brought to view in the Gospels concerning 
his life and character, seem almost ready to strike upon 
their breasts and to say, ‘Truly this was the son of God!” 
This great and holy one, this great teacher, whom the 
greatest sceptics have recognized as the Divine Man, as 
having lived and died like a God, as the one to whom the 
universal conscience has decreed the title of the Son of 
God, as one who really believed himself to have a special 
and extraordinary commission to teach truth and virtue to 
men,—this one referred to and quoted the Old Testament 
books, including the Pentateuch, as divinely true and 
authoritative. He also referred to and quoted the account 
of creation contained in Genesis as being divinely true and 
authoritative. 

But the hypothesis that Jesus Christ possessed super- 


184 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


hunian intelligence and gifts; that he had, as Mill says, a 
unique and special mission to teach mankind; and that, in 
some mysterious sense, he was, as he himself claimed to 
be, the Son of God—this hypothesis is necessary to ex- 
plain the facts, and therefore must be held until the facts 
can be explained in some other way. 

But, according to this hypothesis, the teaching of 
Christ was authoritative and infallible. His endorsement 
therefore of the Old Testament Scriptures proves them to 
be divine and true. By parity of reasoning, the Biblical 
account of creation in Genesis is proved to be divine and 
true ; for the Master referred to and quoted it as such. 

Thus these hypotheses support and strengthen one 
another. If superhuman intelligence is manifested at any 
of the points indicated, it creates a presumption of super- 
human intelligence at every other point. And as each 
hypothesis is necessary to account for certain facts, and 
does account for them, each hypothesis taken by itself is 
probably true. As all the hypotheses sustain one another, 
when taken together, the probability becomes exceedingly 
strong, even overwhelming. 

Taken by itself the fifth and last hypothesis has the 
strongest probability in its favor. The divine character 
and mission of Christ are necessary to account for the 
facts related concerning him in the Gospels, or to account 
for the Gospels themselves. But this last hypothesis, with 
the strong probability in its favor, supports all the others, 
and renders them probable in the same degree. The Bib- 
lical cosmogony is then just ascertainly true as that Christ 
had a superhuman character and mission. The Biblical 
cosmogony being divine and true, it follows that the human 
race originated by the special creation of a single pair; 
that vegetable life began by special creation; that aquatic 
animals began by special creation, perhaps of a single pair 
of each species; and that terrestrial animals began in the 
same way. For each one of these points there are stronger 
proofs and probability than for the many hypotheses that 
figure in Darwinism. 


CHAPTER XII. 


BUT WHAT, IF AFTER ALL DARWINISM SHOULD PROVE TO 
BE TRUE? WHAT, IF THE THEORY OF SPECIAL’ 
CREATIONS IS TRUE? 





I. We have expressed the belief that Darwinism is not 
proved, andis not likely to be. It is claimed, however, 
that the evidence in its favor is being constantly increased 
in the progress of investigation; and perhaps we ought as 
logicians to admit the possibility of the establishment of 
Darwinism, or of something like it, by such evidence as 
will preclude all reasonable doubt. If such should be the 
case, what will the effect be upon the religious beliefs of 
mankind? We donot think that the effect would be great. 
In case Darwinism were proved to be true, and were uni- 
versally accepted, we presume that mankind would con- 
tinue to believe in God, creation and providence, the Bible 
and teleology just as they do now. 

1. In the first place, the theory of special creations and 
Darwinism; that is, Darwinism somewhat modified, may 
both be true. Existing species in general may have been 
derived from antecedent species, and yet the first man and 
the first woman have originated by special creation, As 
Darwin supposed, ‘‘The animals may have descended from 
at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an 
equal or lesser number,” those progenitors of course hav- 
ing originated by special creation. Even the hypothesis, 
“that probably all the organic beings which have ever 
lived on this earth have descended from some one primor- 
dial form, into which life was first breathed,’ ! involves 
the theory of specialcreation. But the hypothesis of a few 
progenitors or primordial forms, as proposed by Darwin, 
more especially coincides with the theory of special crea- 
tion. A few vegetable progenitors may first have origin- 
ated’at the beginning of the third age, when “God said, 

(1) Origin of Species, p. 419. 


186 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, 
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind.” 

A few aquatic progenitors may first have originated 
in the fifth age, when ‘God said, Let the waters bring forth 
abundantly the moving creature that hath life.” A few 
terrestrial progenitors may have come into existence in 
the sixth age, when “God said, Let the earth bring forth 
the living creature after his kind.” ! Or God may at first 
have called into existence a single pair of each species of 
aquatic animals and a single pair of each species of terres- 
trial animals, just as He at first created a single human 
pair. It seems at least that the animals at first were few 
in number; for though ‘God said, Let the waters bring 
forth abundantly,” He also said tothe first aquatic ani- 
mals, as He afterward said tothe first human pair, ‘Be 
fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let 
fowl multiply in the earth.” 

In thus suggesting the possible consistency of modi- 
fied Darwinism with the theory of special creations, we 
propose nothing new. As we have shown, Drummond de- 
clares that “the attacks on the Darwinian theory from the 
outside were never so keen as are the controversies now 
raging, in scientific circles, over the fundamental principles 
of Darwinism itself.’ 2 He also suggests that there is 
nothing else for prudent men todo in the case than to hold 
their judgment in suspense tn regard to Darwinism and the 
Sactors and causes of evolution.’ * As we have shown, Ro- 
manes proposes modifications of Darwinism, and Le Conte 
proposes the virtual abandonment ofitin order to save the 
general hypothesis of evolution. Dana accepts evolution, 
yet he declares the account of creation in Genesis to be 
divine, true and philosophical, and speaks expressly of 
“the creation of vegetation,” “the creation of mammals,” 
‘and the greater work, totally new in its grandest element, 
the creation of man.’ 4 Prof. Winchell, who is ready to 
accept Darwinism with some qualifications, or at least does 
not oppose it, says: ‘For the time being I must believe 
that each organic type is a primordial, and not an indirect, 
creation.” ° Prof. Gray, who in a way accepts Darwinism, 
suggests that man’s Simian descent cannot be accepted 

(1) “After its kind”’ may mean according to its za/ure. 

2) Ascent of Man, p. Rinse 


(2 
(4) Manual of Geiliae p. 849. 
(5) Reconciliation of Science and Religion, p. 224. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 187 


until some monkey, live or fossil, is producible with great 
toes, instead of thumbs, upon his nether extremities; or 
until some lucky geologist turns up the bones of his ances- 
tor and prototype who chipped out flint knives and arrow 
heads in the time of the drift, and wore his great-toes in 
the divergent and thumb-like fashion. He then declares 
expressly that ‘until some testimony of the sort is pro- 
duced, we must needs believe in the separate and special 
creation of man, however it may have been with the lower 
animals and plants.” | 

The theory of special creation, as we have suggested 
it, has this to recommend it to evolutionists—that it would 
relieve them of several troublesome difficulties. If they 
would admit the intervention of God’s creative power at 
the beginning of things, at the introduction of vegetable 
and animal life, and at the creation of man, they would not 
be under the necessity of resorting to the dogmas of spon- 
taneous generation, and of supposing the evolution of life 
out of non-living matter equivalent to the production of 
something out of nothing, through natural means and 
forces; and they would also be relieved from the necessity 
of seeking after an intermediate animal to fill the large 
gap between man and the highest of the brutes. 

2. Darwinism, even if proved and admitted, would not 
and could not destroy teleology or any of the theistic argu- 
ment. 

For in case Darwinism is true, natural selection is yet 
to be regarded merely as a natural law or secondary cause. 
If natural selection be a natural law, there must be a law- 
giver and executor; for laws neither establish nor execute 
themselves. It natural selection be asecondary cause, then 
must there be a great First Cause, to which it and other 
secondary causes are subordinate. Teleologists and theists 
in general believe that God rules the world mainly through 
natural laws and secondary causes. Teleologists may 
therefore consistently be Darwinists, as many of them are. 

As a matter of fact, animals and plants have origina- 
ted, generation after generation, by derivation. Only the 
first man and woman, and the first generation of animals, 
came inte existence by immediate creation, according to 
the prevalent belief and thetheory of specialcreation. The 
countless multitudes of plants and animals have come into 
existence by descent or derivation, which is a kind of evo- 

(1) Darwiniana, p. 92. 


188 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


lution. But origination in this way does not exclude the 
idea of divine foresight and agency. God is as really the 
Creator of the later generations of men as of Adam and 
Eve. If then the genera and species of plants and an1- 
mals in general have descended from. antecedent genera 
and species, God is just as really their Creator as if He 
had created them immediately and separately. 

Nor does derivative creation destroy the evidences of 
design. ‘The eyes, hands and other organs of Adam’s de- 
scendants, in the judgment of those who believe in special 
creation, manifest God’s wisdom, skill and goodness just 
as effectually as did the organs of Adam himself. Nor do 
the exquisite, ingenious and wonderful adaptations and 
contrivances, which, it is admitted, abound in plants and 
animals, cease to be such because their possessors, as a 
matter of fact, originated by descent, or because their pos- 
sessors belong to sp2cies that may have originated in the 
same way. The thought, foresight, wisdom and intention, 
displayed by these adaptations and contrivances cannot 
be in zatural selection, which is a blind force or a mere 
node of operation, and has neither thought, foresight, wis- 
dom nor design. 

The fact that the adaptations and contrivances are 
manifested in plants and animals, that were preceded by 
many species of varied and ascending grades, does not 
alter the case. Our huge war ships and ocean steamers 
manifest in their construction thought, foresight and de- 
sign none the less because they were preceded by multi- 
tudes of vessels of ascending grades from the skiff and 
the ferry-boat. Nor are the skill and design manifested in 
the construction of ships, watches and machines in the 
least diminished by the /zme employed in their construc- 
tion. : 

3. As we have said, many Darwinists accept the argu- 
ment as legitimate and valid. Darwin himself, at the time 
he wrote his greatest work, was a teleologist and believed 
in God as the Creator and Ruler of the world. He speaks 
of God as the author of natural laws and secondary causes, 
thus: “To my mind it accords better with what we know 
ot the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the 
production and extinction of the past and present inhabi- 
tants of the world should have been due to the secondary 
causes, like those determining the birth and death of the 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 189 


individual.”! Even afterward, when he was the farthest 
gone in agnosticism, and (as he himself said) his brain 
was atrophied and the reading of Shakespeare had become 
nauseating to him, he did not get rid of teleology. He 
was (to use his own expression) in a hopeless muddle on 
the subject, but, as he himself confessed, at times teleologi- 
cal views and evidences came upon him with overwhelm- 
‘ing force. 

Spencer is no teleologist, but he maintains that the 
hypothesis of evolution, as well as that of special creations, 
‘implies a cause,” and that the advocates of the latter are 
mistaken in thinking that it ‘honors the Unknown Cause 
of things” more than the former. He suggests also that 
the derivative creation of species serves just as well to de- 
monstrate divine power as the derivative creation of in- 
dividuals. In sneering terms he speaks of what he is 
pleased to call ‘‘the artificial, vulgarly supposed method of 
the formation of the universe” and “the mechanical God of 
Paley,” and claims that the nebular hypothesis “implies a 
First Cause much more exalted.” 2, Though Spencer goes 
as faras he can in the attempt to reduce the idea of God to 
a mere abstraction, an unknown Power without personal- 
ity or attributes, yet, after all, his hypothesis of evolution 
can not get along without a God behind and in the forces 
and principles, development and progress which figure 
so largely in his philosophy. We have shown * that Le 
Conte declares: ‘‘There is design in everything.”! Even 
Fiske declares: “The whole scheme was teleological, and 
each single act of natural selection had a teleological 
meaning.” 5 

Other Darwinists are not only more outspoken in the 
expression of teleological views, but also declare their ac- 
ceptance of the argument from design. Prof. Winchell, of 
Michigan University, is a Darwinist, so far at least as to 
declare that his ‘‘conviction is that the doctrine of the de- 
rivation of species should be accepted.” © He is neverthe- 
less ateleologist. He affirms that “the world is full of in- 
stances of intentionality ;’ and that “in every effect where 
intention is manifest, mind is implied.” He declares the 

(1) Origin of Spectes, p 423. 

(2) Untversal Progress, p 299. 

(3) See chap. 10. p. 581. 

(4) Fvolution, &¢. p. 573 

(5) The Idea of God, p. 161. 

(6) Recon. of Science and Religion, Pref, p. 5. 


190 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


argument as presented by Paley to be valid and imperish- 
able.! 

Prof. Gray, of Harvard University, a Darwinist in his 
way, Says: ‘We could not affirm that the arguments for 
design in nature are conclusive to allminds. But we may 
insist, upon grounds already intimated, that, whatever 
they were good for before Darwin’s book appeared, they 
are good for now. To our minds the argument from de- 
sign always appeared conclusive of the being and contin- 
ued operation of an intelligent First Cause, the Ordainer 
of nature; and we do not see that the grounds of such be- 
lief would be disturbed or shifted by the adoption of Dar- 
win’s hypothesis.” 2 

4. Finally, the question may be asked, whether the uni- 
verse, even if called into being by the creative power of 
God, may not now be self-sustaining and self-regulating. 
It may be maintained that the more nearly perfect a ma- 
ohine is the less need will it have of superintendence and 
regulation. If, then, an absolutely perfect machine were 
constructed and once set a-going, would it not run on for- 
ever without supervision or aid? It may then be asked, 
according to the teleological and theistic view, ought not 
the universe to be absolutely independent, and to be en- 
tirely self sustaining and self-regulating, so that, in the 
sarcastic language of Carlyle, all that God has now to do is 
to sit outside of the universe and see it go? 

In opposition to this hypothesis, it is to be observed : 

(1st.) It is not in evidence that, in the nature of 
things, any ereatcd thing can be independent of its Creator. 

(2d.) Itis not known that any created thing can be 
self-sustaining. For allthat men can know, if the sus- 
taining power of God were withdrawn, every created thing, 
the whole universe, would return at once to nothing. 

(3d.) Even if it were possible in the nature of things 
that a created thing might be independent of its Creator, 
and be self-sustaining and self-regulating, it does not fol- 
low that an infinitely wise, holy and benevolent God ever 
has or ever will create such a being. 

(4th.) As a matter of fact, the larger, more powerful and 
more complex a machine is, the more knowledge, skill and 
power are required for its management. A very weak and 
ignorant man may run a wheel-barrow, but it requires a 


(1) Recon. of Science and Religion, pp. 150-7-9. 
(2) Darwintana, p. 152. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 19f 


good deal of strength and skill to runa locomotive. AI- 
most any one can paddle a canoe, though even that re- 
quires some acquired skill. But the strength and skill of 
many men and even many machines, must be employed in 
the management of the huge ocean steamer. What knowl- 
edge, skill and power, then, must it require to manage this 
huge universe, almost infinitely complex and embracing as 
parts of itself all forces and machines! Does some one 
suggest that the universe is governed by laws? We an- 
swer, yes; but laws must not only be established, but also 
be executed. 

(5th.) Machines not only require superintendence and 
regulation, but their parts wear out and must be repaired 
or replaced. 

Something analogous to this takes place in nature. 
The human body wears out and ceases to operate. Thus it 
is also with the bodies of the lower animals. Injuries from 
wounds and the wear andtear from abuse areto a certain 
extent repaired. But inthe end, if life continues long 
enough, every animal body wears out and ceases to operate. 
In such cases repairs are out of the question, and new ma- 
chines must be introduced. This isa typeof what is going 
on in the universe everywhere, so far as we can judge. The 
sun itself is continually giving out light and heat, and as 
it is finite in extent, its resources must in time be exhaust-. 
ed, unless there is from time to time a re-supply of wasted 
material. Hence some scientists have predicted a freezing 
time in the far distant future. Thus throughout the uni- 
verse, as far as we can know, there are wear and tear, waste 
and breakage, making repairs and replacements necessary. 
For these reasons the universe, like a piece of human ma- 
chinery, must have not only a Maker, but an Upholder, 
Regulator and Repairer. 

II. Butifthe theory of special creations 1s true, what 
then? The acceptance of this theory is certainly not likely 
to produce any disastrous results. It has been accepted 
and earnestly believed, and is still earnestly believed, by 
very large numbers of intelligent people and of able, 
learned and scientific men, without injury to themselves or 
others. There are several considerations which recommend 
it. 

1. The theory of special creations is set forth in the first 
chapterof Genesis. It is the prevalent belief among in- 
telligent people and of the most learned, ablest and best of 


192 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


men, and has been for about eighteen centuries, that the 
Bible isin some sense the book of God. Only by this fact, 
or as some would call it, hypothesis, can be accounted for 
this grand, old book, wonderful in its literary character, its 
moral code, its influence and effects. Its account of crea- 
tion contains truths which could not be known nor under- 
stood inancient times by unassisted human reason. As 
we have shown, that able and accomplished scientist, Prof. 
Dana, pronounces this account of creation ‘profoundly 
philosophical” and declares that “itis a declaration of au- 
thorship, both of creation and the Bible, on the first page 
of the sacred volume.” 1 But the acccunt of creation in 
Genesis, by its manifestation of supernatural intelligence, 
attests not only the divine authorship of the Bible, but also 
‘the doctrine of special creations; for this doctrine is prom1- 
nent in the first chapter of Genesis. Indeed all the evt- 
dences, external and internal, which we have to prove that 
the Bible contains supernatural revelation, are indirectly 
evidences in favor of special creation. For, ifthe Bible is 
the book of God, itis highly improbable, if not altogether 
incredible, that its divine author would allow a false doc- 
trine to appear in its firstand most prominent part. Hence 
every argument in favor of the divine inspiration of the 
Scriptures serves equally well to prove the theory of special 
creation. 

2. Another thing that recommends this theory is this, 
that its acceptance odvzates the need for that unphilosophical 
and unscientific dogma, the hypothesis of spontaneous genera- 
tion. 

We have shown 2 that Heckel, followed by Huxley, 
and Spencer followed by Fiske, have found it necessary to 
resort to this hypothesis to account for the origin of things, © 
Even Prof. Le Conte, after condemning those whom he 
calls “extreme evolutionists (such as Dr. Bastian and Prof. 
Heeckel) and nearly all anti-evolutionists, for imagining 
that the truth of evolution and that of spontaneous gener- 
ation must stand or fall together,’ immediately turns 
round and affirms that though abiogenesis is zow a false 
doctrine, it was not always so, but that spontaneous gener- 
ation did once occur in the history of the earth. Darwin 
avoided all such notions, at least in his greatest work, be- 


() Manualof Geology, p. 850. 
(2) See Chap. V: 
(2) LHvolution and its Relation, etc., p 1. 


APPLIED TO DARWINISM AND TELEOLOGY. 193 


cause atthe time of its production he believed in God and 
ascribed to him the creation of primordial forms. Had he 
not believed that ‘the first creature was created,” ! he too 
might have attempted to bridge the chasm between non- 
living and living matter, by propounding the hypothesis of 
spontaneous generation, involving the notion that a change 
may occur without an adequate cause, or without a cause 
at all. 

3. Thetheory of special creations obviates the necessity 
for the impossible and absurd hypothesis that the number 
ofspecies has increased from one(or at most froma few) 
primordial forms toten millions dead and living, while but 
few species at any one time are changing, and most are 
stationary. That theory avoids also the selt-contradictory 
supposition that species. have increased from one, or at 
least from a very few species, to two millions now living, 
while yet comparatively few have been transmuted and the 
great majority have become extinct without leaving de-, 
scendants of any kind. 2 

4. This theory accounts for the gaps, chasms, and abrupt 
transitions, ‘‘astounding breaks,” as Prof. Dana calls them, 
presented in the geological record. Itobviates the necessi- 
ty for supposing, as Darwin did, imperfections and non- 
comformity in that record in many places, where, according 
to Le Conte and other geologists, such non-conformities 
and imperfections do not exist. It also obviates the neces- 
sity for the hypothesis of rapid and paroxysmal evolution as 
propounded by Le Conte, but rejected by Darwin and most 
ofthe Darwinists, who maintain that nature makes no 
abrupt advances—Watura non facit saltum. It explains why, 
again and again, as indicated by the fossiliferous strata, full- 
formed species have suddenly appeared, and, after longer or 
shorter duration, just as suddenly disappeared. 

5. The theory of special creation explains why every 
species is perfect in its kind—-why there are no half-formed 
species, no transitional forms. 

6. This theory accounts for the origin of vegetable life, 
by the divine fiat and creative evolution from the earth; 
for the origin of aquatic life, by the divine fiat and creative 
evolution from the water; for the origin of land animals in 
general, by the divine fiat and creative evolution from the 
land; for the origin of the human body, by the divine fiat 

(1) @rigin of Species, ov. 422. 
(2) See chap. 8, sec. 4. 


194 COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC 


and creative evolution from the dust of the ground; and 
for the origin of the human soul as a living and animating 
spirit, infused by the inspiration of the Almighty. 

7. This theory accounts for the instincts, skill and hab- 
its of bees, ants, birds, and other animals—wonderful in- 
stincts, skill and habits, which continue through thousands 
of years without change either in advancement or retrogres- 
sion. 

8. This theory accounts for the immense difference be- 
tween man and even the most intellectual of the lower ani- 
mals; and why the much desiderated intermediate links in 
the zoological chain have not been found nor are likely to be. 
'g. This theory explains why man alone of atl the high- 
er animals is without any natural covering for his body. 

10. This theory explains why man, though naturally the 
most defenseless and helpless of all the higher animals, is 
the master of the earth, and, as can be said of no other 
animal, is the inhabitant of every zone. 

Thus the doctrine of special creations appears to be en- 
cumbered with fewer difficulties and to explain more facts 
than the Darwinian hypothesis; and, therefore, on grounds 
of common sense and logic, and aside from the teachings 
of Scripture, is to be préferred. 











ap eo 
5 aw fue 


> 
: 
. < 


eo 
> 


oe 


= 


eo 


=. 


- 


t. 








> 


. 
a 
= 


- + 
t - “s 


» 











* 
aa 





Ba 


ae 


ary 


i 


6 


Libr 


Speer 


See 
eee 
Soe 


Ss 


ll 


1 1012 01007 


cal 


il 


ton 


i 


Be Pag 


ae AA 





